Family Law Hub

B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33

Judgment, published: 02/09/2013

Items referring to this

  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Appeal by mother against refusal of application for permission to take child out of the jurisdiction to live with her in Poland. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 23/02/2018, free
  • In brief: Mr Justice MacDonald told off the barristers involved in this case (which concerns how much contact a 13 year old should have with her father (“F”) for the way they constantly interrupted one another. The interruptions had meant that important points were not raised or followed through which did not help the trial judge in making a sound decision. The expert psychologist was also criticised for producing a report at the last minute that was of poor quality and of no real help. Judgment, 22/03/2018, free
  • Father sought to challenge an order permitting the mother of his two children to re-locate from England and Wales in order to take up permanent residence with her new husband in Abu Dhabi. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Judgment in long running Hague Convention case concerning whether one of the children involved, now 16, should be a party to the mother's committal proceedings resulting from alleged failure to return the children to Spain. Judgment, 31/03/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against an order which allowed the mother to permanently relocate to Germany with their daughter. The appeal was allowed: the judge's reliance on the Payne v Payne criteria led her away from carrying out the necessary overall welfare analysis that was needed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • As the title implies, an intractable contact dispute that has been ongoing for nearly 14 years. The F was applying to have a contact order (which only allowed him direct contact with his daughter 3 times a year) to be varied. The order was varied, but the judge also extended an order under s91(14) such that F could not apply, without the permission of the court, for any new orders under s8, or apply to have the current order varied, until his daughter's 16th birthday. Judgment, 01/10/2013, free
  • Fact finding hearing in respect of 3 children and whether they should have direct contact with the father after mother made allegations of violence against her and another child. The allegations were found not to have been proved. The judgment concludes with a discussion of the conduct of the mother's solicitors. The judge made a wasted costs order against them, the judge saying that "the conduct of the mother's solicitors is so serious and so inexcusable that I find that they acted improperly and unreasonably. Further the conduct caused the father to incur unnecessary costs." Judgment, 05/03/2015, free
  • Judgment in contact case where the father was alleging alienation by the mother. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 09/04/2014, free
  • Judgment in contact case where the father was alleging alienation by the mother Case note, 04/06/2014, members only
  • The 4 children and M were Spanish nationals, F was English. M took the children back to Spain. After a few months they came back to the UK with F who did not return them to Spain. An order was made for their return which was resisted especially by the older child. The order in her case was overturned but the case of the other 3 children was remitted to the High Court. Discussion of the joinder of the children as parties. Judgment, 03/10/2013, free
  • F's appeal against an order which refused his application for supervised contact with his three sons. The appeal was allowed because, although the F had displayed behaviour which threatened the M, the judge had failed to adequately address why the children's safety and the management of the M's anxieties could not be achieved under any circumstances of supervision. Judgment, 23/09/2013, free
  • Appeal against dismissal of step-father's applications to adopt the two children of his Polish partner both of whom had different Polish fathers. In the words of McFarlane LJ the case "presents a timely opportunity to consider how an adoption application brought by a child's step-parent is to be approached." He allowed the appeal and made the orders. Judgment, 15/08/2014, free
  • Father's application to appeal judge's findings in respect of domestic violence in a contact case. Application refused. Judgment, 02/09/2013, free
  • The husband wished to litigate matrimonial matters arising from the impending dissolution of his marriage in England; the wife wished to litigate in Malaysia. The judge ruled in favour of the husband. The wife appealed against an order which dismissed her application for (i) a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; (ii) dismissal of the husband's petition; alternatively, (iii) a stay of the husband's petition. She also appealed the order that she shall make a payment of £100,000 on account of costs. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • Appeal against orders in financial remedy proceedings where the wife argued, among other things, that the district judge should not have ordered a clean break. Moor J made some adjustments to the orders but declined to overturn the clean break. Judgment, 10/11/2015, free
  • In these Schedule 1 proceedings, mother wanted to be able to disclose to the Police and/or to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA] the fact that the father lied in statements and on oath in these proceedings. The father worked in the financial services sector and his lies consisted of his initially not disclosing within the proceedings the fact that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received a sum of £111,000. The judge had to weigh up the rights and interests of the parties between themselves against the public interest and ruled that the injunction, which prohibited disclosure of the proceedings to third parties without the permission of the court, was upheld. The mother also lost her application to have this judgment published in a non-anonymised form. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free

Published: 02/09/2013


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.


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