Judgments

This was a decision of Mrs Justice Judd regarding an application by the local authority to disclose findings of fact made by the court to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

This judgement was published by District Judge Worthley sitting in the Family Court at Worthing. The Court was concerned with an application made by the wife for financial remedies some 8 years after the granting of Decree Absolute.

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, handed down an important judgment on 20 February 2026 reshaping the Family Court’s approach to expert witnesses and allegations of alienating behaviour. The case concerned private law children proceedings, in which the court set aside a finding that the mother had alienated the children from their father.

Father failing to comply with return orders for a child from Nigeria to this jurisdiction.  Mitigating and aggravating factors considered.  Imprisonment for six months based on extremely serious breaches.  Costs orders that followed.

The High Court granted declarations that it would be unlawful and unethical for certain resuscitative treatments to be provided to F, an infant with a life-limiting condition who was subject to a care order.

Appeal concerning the interim child arrangements for DD, a one year old child, in proceedings brought by the biological father (CC) against the mother (BB) and the child’s stepfather (AA).

Application by mother to relocate to South Africa. The father opposed and sought shared care in England.

This judgment concerned costs following the substantive financial remedies decision delivered on 14 November 2025.

Final hearing in W’s application for financial remedies following a long marriage involving criminal convictions, extensive non-disclosure, relief from sanctions and allegations of dissipation.

The court was, following a set-aside and rehearing, satisfied on the evidence that the grave risk of harm defence under Article 13(b) was made out and absent protective measures.  Child not to be summarily returned.

Permission to appeal hearing.  The court has a very wide discretion and ambit to do the best it could when looking at a range of potential tax liabilities and a reverse contingent lump sum order was appropriate with the inability to come up with a more specified formulaic approach.

This case concerns a final hearing of a parties’ cross applications for the return of their children.

This judgment by District Judge Napier is a strong illustration of the court’s considerations when making a Special Guardianship Order in private law disputes and its approach to internal relocation.

HHJ Cope. Extended civil restraint order made against F following 6 applications and 2 appeals which were all found to be totally without merit.

This was a post‑judgment costs decision following financial remedy proceedings in which serious findings had been made against the respondent wife.

This judgment concerns applications for costs and wasted costs following the conclusion of private law children proceedings.