Judgments

Hayden J gave helpful guidance about procedural issues arising from an application for permission to appeal.

Recorder Taylor KC handed down judgment following M’s application for a child arrangements order in September 2020 and F’s application for contact dated 31st March 2021.

This case concerns the financial remedies’ proceedings arising out of the divorce between XY and XX.

HHJ Owens handed down judgment on 24 February 2025 in private law Children Act proceedings making a final order to live with the Father and no order specifying when the children should spend time with the Mother.

This judgment was published by Mrs Justice Lieven DBE in the High Court. This case concerns further proceedings in respect of this family, and the risk of forced marriage for their children.  

This judgment was published by Mr Justice Harrison in the High Court. This case concerns proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’), which have been listed before me as a final hearing.

This was a decision of Richard Todd KC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge and was a case concerning a number of matters.

Litigant in person successfully appeals costs order made against him in non-molestation proceedings. The correct order was no order as to costs. Poole J also commented on procedure in non-molestation proceedings, noting that delays are “liable to defeat the object” of such applications. 

This judgment was published by Mr Justice Harrison in the High Court. The court was concerned with a father’s application for a return order in relation to his daughter, V aged 9.

This judgment was published by Mr Stonor KC in the High Court. The court was concerned with a return order under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in relation to his daughters, EF (who is aged 5) and GH (who is aged 3).

This judgment follows the final hearing of the application for financial remedy.

Application by W to adjust an arbitral award (‘the Award’) owing to H’s purported fraudulent non-disclosure. Held that H had not complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure and W’s award increased.

This judgment sets out Mr Justice Cobb’s reasons for allowing an application for a declaration of non-parentage. The applicant was Mr J, and he sought the declaration in respect of twin children A and B, aged 16.

Financial remedies judgment in a straightforward case that has been ongoing since 2017. W’s application where the main assets are the former matrimonial home and the husband’s pension.

This was an application by the applicant (VC) who applied for an ‘anti suit’ injunction to prevent the respondent (DB) from pursuing, participating, or otherwise continuing any applications for periodical payments for the children of the family, the second and third respondent (X and Y) or any other applications relating to their marriage in the courts of India.

Simon Colton KC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge made an interim charging order final.