- The father applied, under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, incorporating the 1980 Hague Convention, for the summary return to Australia of three children aged 4, 9 and 13. The mother opposed the application on the basis that the retention had not been in breach of the father's rights of custody, that the father had acquiesced to the relocation, that there was a grave risk of a return exposing the children to harm, and that two of the children objected to returning and were old enough for their views to be taken into account. By the time of the hearing it was common ground between the parties that the children had been habitually resident in Australia, that the father shared rights of custody with the mother and that he had been exercising these rights. Mr David Rees QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, did not accept the mother's evidence that the father had given express consent to a permanent relocation. He found that the mother had made out an Article 13 exception in relation to the two older children's objections, but not with regards to grave harm. He exercised his discretion to direct the return of the children to Australia, but noted in a postscript that his order had not been carried into effect, the Australian courts having permitted, on an interim basis, the children to remain in England with the mother. Judgment, 20/12/2020, free
- The child arrangements order being appealed by the mother had been made by consent at the FHDRA, and had provided for the three children to live with her and spend time with the father. No reasons were given by the magistrates, and there were no references in the order to allegations of domestic abuse, safeguarding checks or to Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm, Family Procedure Rules 2010. The mother's grounds of appeal also asserted that a report supporting the terms of the order had been made without observing the father with the children and without the author having given proper consideration to the allegations of domestic violence. HHJ Cove found that the magistrates' decision was plainly wrong. No reasons had been given, the court had not had regard to PD 12J, the safeguarding checks were incomplete, and there had been no analysis of whether the consent order should be made nor of the risk of harm to the children. The order was set aside. Judgment, 18/12/2020, free
- An application for the summary return of the eight-year-old son to Australia, where he had always lived until being brought without warning to England by the mother. The application was made under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, pursuant to Articles 3 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention. It was agreed that the son's habitual residence in Australia and the father's exercising of rights of custody at the material time had both been made out. The task for Mr Teertha Gupta QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, was thus to decide on a summary basis whether the mother had raised a valid defence under the 1980 Hague Convention and, if so, whether he should exercise his discretion not to return the child forthwith to Australia. He found that the Article 13(b) defence had not been established; there was no evidence to support the mother's assertion that the child had suffered severe symptoms of intolerable anxiety. Mr Teertha Gupta QC expressed concern that the mother's actions might be symptoms of a deeper wish to eradicate the father from the child's life. It was in the child's overall and long-term best interests to return to Australia forthwith. The father's application was granted. Judgment, 18/12/2020, free
- The parents had lived together for twelve years. During previous proceedings regarding contact with their two children, the mother had alleged domestic abuse on the father's part, both towards her and towards a subsequent partner. Following a conviction for assault on a third partner, he applied to enforce an order for contact, in response to which the mother raised the issue of his violent behaviour towards multiple partners. The district judge found that there had been domestic abuse, but later recused herself after realising that her son and the mother were members of the same sports club. The judge then agreed to re-open the district judge's earlier findings of fact on the basis of apparent bias. The mother appealed with regard to the recusal and the decision to re-open the findings. Peter Jackson LJ found that the judge's decision had been both wrong and unfair. The district judge had not discovered that her son and the mother knew each other until months after her findings of fact had been made. King and Phillips LJJ agreed. The father's application was dismissed, and the proceedings were remitted for the welfare decision to be taken on the basis of the district judge's findings of fact by another circuit judge. Judgment, 17/12/2020, free
- The claimant and the first defendant had lived together for most of the time between 1990 and 2011, although the first defendant denied that they had been in a committed relationship. Upon being asked to leave, the claimant had asserted a beneficial interest in the property in which they lived, and an agreement had been reached whereby he would be paid £250,000 in return for withdrawing that claim. The money in question had not been paid, but the first defendant argued that the conditions necessary for payment had not been met. Deputy Judge Robin Vos found that, taking all the evidence into account, it was clear that the two of them had a long-term, committed relationship which went well beyond being good friends, but the claimant had not had a beneficial interest in the property. The agreement made was binding and valid, but the defendant's obligation to pay was conditional on him receiving a gift or inheritance from his father, and this had not happened. The claims were thus dismissed in their entirety. Judgment, 17/12/2020, free
- An executor, the younger brother of the deceased, had appealed against an order for him to exhibit on oath a true and perfect inventory of the estate and an account of its administration. The respondents to the appeal were the deceased's widow and three children from his first marriage. The appeal was dismissed, and in this judgment MacDonald J dealt with whether those costs should be assessed on the standard or the indemnity basis, and the quantum of the costs. He decided that the executor should pay the costs of the respondents on an indemnity basis in the sum of £27,818.92 plus VAT. After delaying for over a decade, the executor had put the respondents to further expense, delay and inconvenience by requiring them to meet an appeal of dubious merit. This was a clear case for the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 16/12/2020, free
- The husband appealed from a case management order made in financial remedy proceedings. The parties had separated in 2016, after 29 years of marriage. It was accepted on both sides that their assets had been built up during the marriage. There had been negotiations but the wife did not consider herself bound by the agreement. The judge below had found that an abbreviated process was not appropriate, since the significance of the agreement would require detailed analysis, and he ordered further case management. On appeal, the husband argued that the judge had erred in refusing to set down his show cause application for hearing, and in making case management decisions that would have been unnecessary if the show cause application had been successful. The wife argued that the judge's order had been within his discretion. Theis J dismissed the appeal on all grounds, rejecting any suggestion that the judge had been wrong or erred in law. He had been entitled to make the order that he made, for the reasons he set out. Such cases were fact specific, and there was no inflexible rule as to how the proceedings should be conducted. She urged the parties to negotiate, to bring them certainty and finality, and to reduce the impact of increasing legal costs. Judgment, 16/12/2020, free
- A costs application by the father against the mother, following his largely successful applications for child arrangements orders, specific issue orders and prohibited steps orders. There had been five contested hearings. The father cited her conduct of proceedings as relevant under CPR rule 44.2(4)(a) and (5). The mother argued that the established criteria of unreasonable or reprehensible conduct were not satisfied in this case, that it would not be just to make a costs order against her, that such an order would be to the child's detriment, and that if the court were minded to order costs, certain costs should not be included, such as the costs of and incidental to the FHDRA. HHJ Corbett, sitting as a s 9 deputy judge of the High Court, found that the mother's conduct had been unreasonable, she had barely made an effort to engage in proceedings, and a costs order, excluding the costs of the FHDRA, was entirely just. She was ordered to pay a contribution of £15,000 to the father's costs. Judgment, 16/12/2020, free
- Both parents were Polish nationals. Their brief relationship ended before the child, now eight, was born. The mother brought the child to England in 2018, and they had lived here since. The father applied for a return order under the Hague Convention 1980. Issues to be determined included the date of retention, the date of habitual residence, whether the father had acquiesced to the move, whether the child was settled, whether an article 13(b) defence could be established, whether the child objected to a return, and whether the court should exercise its discretion not to order a return. Poole J found the evidence of both parents unsatisfactory and evasive, and gave more weight to the contemporaneous evidence available. The child had continued to be habitually resident in England. His visit to Poland had been temporary, and thus the Hague Convention had no application to the mother then bringing him back to England. The father's application was dismissed. If the Hague Convention had applied, the court would have exercised its discretion to not order the child's return: he clearly objected to returning to Poland, and the father had acquiesced to him remaining in England. Judgment, 08/12/2020, free
- A second appeal as to whether the claimant had established that she had a 50% beneficial interest as an equitable co-owner in a house in Bolton. The first appeal had decided that she did not. She had lived there from 2000 to 2012 with the defendant, to whom the claimant's father had transferred the legal title for nil consideration in 2008. The couple had not been married. Henderson LJ considered that although the district judge had misdirected herself in relation to the requirement of detrimental reliance, it was sufficiently clear from her findings and the contemporary documents that the requirement was in fact satisfied. The appeal was therefore allowed on that basis. The claimant had agreed to the property being transferred into the defendant's sole name, when the previous intention had been for a transfer into joint names, and had given her consent due to the defendant's false representation that he would otherwise be unable to obtain a mortgage. David Richards and Nugee LJJ agreed. Judgment, 07/12/2020, free
Family Law Hub