Family Law Hub

Welcome to the Family Law Hub

Know-how, update and training for the private family lawyer. Click here to find out more..

New to Family Law Hub

  • SC v TC [2019] EWHC 1637 (Fam) The judge had ordered a change of residence for the son, but there had been direct communication between the judge and the National Youth Advocacy Service without the parents' knowledge, including a telephone conversation during a break in the hearing. Newton J understood how the judge reached the conclusions which she did, but the hearing was fundamentally flawed and the appeal was allowed. Judgment, 26/06/2019, free
  • AB v XY [2019] EWHC 1468 (Fam) The wife had applied for an occupation order for a property. The husband had claimed that the marriage certificate was a forgery. The judge found that there was a marriage and the husband was a serial liar. The husband now sought permission to appeal the findings and the consequent orders, and an extension of time to do so. Williams J allowed the appeal, on the basis that the hearing was procedurally irregular and the outcome consequently unjust. The matter was remitted to the Family Court. Judgment, 25/06/2019, free
  • SD v AFH (Appeal: Coercive and controlling behaviour: Inference or speculation) [2019] EWHC 1513 (Fam) The father sought permission to appeal against a decision with findings of fact that he had demonstrated controlling and coercive behaviour, undermining and assaulting the mother. Williams J was satisfied that HHJ Plunkett was justified in reaching the conclusions that he did. The father's acquittal for assault in the Crown Court was not inconsistent with the finding on the balance of probabilities that he had pushed the mother to the ground. The father was not focusing on his son's best interests. There was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal, and permission to appeal was refused. Judgment, 22/06/2019, free
  • NY (A Child: 1980 Hague Abduction Convention: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2019] EWCA Civ 1065 The mother appealed against an order for summary return of the child to Israel. Moylan LJ decided that the appeal must be dismissed. He found that there was no retention such that the 1980 Convention applied, but the judge had been entitled to make an order for the child's return under the court's inherent jurisdiction, and had taken into account the identified protective measures. Haddon-Cave LJ and Flaux LJ agreed. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
  • RJ v Tigipko & Ors [2019] EWHC 1579 (Fam) The father had applied for the return of the children from Ukraine, where they had been kept for ten months. Mostyn J had stayed the application, in anticipation of the Ukrainian court reinstating the father's application there. This did not happen, so the stay was lifted and the application would be heard. Directions were given, but the judge also urged the parties to explore a mediated solution to the case. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
  • Income Tax & SDLT on Divorce Recording of webinar first broadcast on 19th June 2019. Webcast, 20/06/2019, members only
  • President issues new guidance on forms of order in children cases Guidance is issued by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. News, 19/06/2019, free
  • Re K (A Child) [2019] EWHC 1504 (Fam) The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, free
  • NG v GA [2019] EWHC 1412 (Fam) The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • FW v FH [2019] EWHC 1338 (Fam) A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free

Don't miss

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item