Judgments

HHJ Booth deciding an appeal. This is a real needs case.

This case concerns a financial dispute between unmarried individuals without children, governed by the Married Women’s Property Act 1882. The central issue was the ownership of seven pieces of jewellery worth £67,942.

Court of Appeal Refuses Adjournment for International Placement Assessment, Prioritising timely adoption for Child’s Welfare.

His Honour Judge Newport orders care and placement order for One-Year-Old BE, and refused post adoption contact, due to Significant Risk of Harm from Parents.

This was a contested final hearing of the Husband’s application for financial remedies. The primary issue was the treatment of a post-nuptial agreement (PNA). The agreement was found to be valid, but the award was made to meet the Wife’s needs. The court provided a helpful summary of the legal principles applicable to the treatment of PNAs.

The Court of Appeal allowed a father’s appeal against the decision of a Deputy High Court Judge not to make a costs order against the mother at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing.

District Judge Cockayne presided over a final hearing concerning the living arrangements of two children, T (14) and G (12).

Considering the recent Family Justice Council Guidance on allegations of alienating behaviour, Poole J made no order on an application by a former civil partner to spend time with four children born during her civil partnership with the biological mother.

This was a judgment by HHJ Vincent sitting as a s9 Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Court sitting at Oxford. The court was concerned with final hearing in care proceedings relating to 4 children, aged nearly 12, 9, 8 and 6. The final hearing followed a fact-finding hearing in private law proceedings which had been heard in December 2023.

This was a judgment by HHJ Hickinbottom sitting in the Family Court at Leeds. The court was concerned with a final hearing relating to a 1 year 7 month old child ‘D’. The applicant local authority sought care and placement orders proposing a final care plan of adoption.

In a judgment handed down on 27 August 2024 HHJ Middleton-Roy decided that, contrary to the consensus of professional opinion and Local Authority care plan to place the two children for adoption, the children should instead be placed with their paternal grandparents under a Special Guardianship Order.

Recorder Chandler KC criticised the parties and the applicant’s representative for having adjourn the final hearing due to their extensive flouting of procedural rules.

The application concerned, S, a boy aged 14 who was born in the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the making of care orders for three boys, and a placement order for the youngest, because there had been no proper assessment of the risks to the children of returning them to their parents.

These proceedings were heard by Ms Justice Henke, in the High Court in respect of an application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction.

This appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the lead judgment coming from the President of the Family Division. The court was concerned with a 17 year old boy.