- Final hearing of an application for financial remedies made in high value net worth divorce proceedings. Judgment, 30/05/2018, free
- Mother applied for orders including a child arrangements order (that the children live with her and that there is no contact ordered with Father), a specific issue order (that the children are to be known by different names), a prohibited steps order and a s91 (14) order (restricting Father from making further applications to the court). Judgment, 28/07/2016, free
- In this surrogacy case, the commissioning parents were applying for a parental order in relation to two girls where the application had been made 17 months after the 6 month deadline had expired. The parental orders were made. Judgment, 22/07/2015, free
- The child's maternal grandmother and aunt, who are Polish, were seeking disclosure orders as to the whereabouts of the father and the child in this country and rights of access pursuant to Article 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 after the father brought the child to the UK when the mother died. Judgment, 01/08/2018, free
- Judgment, 10/03/2013, free
- Seven cases where the relief sought was a declaration of parentage in accordance with section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 following an HFEA audit which raised the question of whether there were valid consents as required by Part 2 of the 2008 Act. The declarations were made. Judgment, 11/09/2015, free
- Judgment (external), 11/07/2013, free
- Appeal against decision to disclose third party allegations of sexual abuse in contact proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 12/12/2012, free
- The father appealed against a decision to set aside a return order and to dismiss his application for summary return. The father was an Italian national, the mother a British national, and shortly after their son was born in England they moved to Italy. In 2019, when the child was 10, the mother brought him to England and they did not return. The judge had found that the evidence of the child's wishes and feelings amounted to "a fundamental change of circumstances" and "a fundamental change to the basis on which the previous order was made". In Hayden J's view, although the judge had clearly identified a significant and sustained degree of pressure placed on the child by his mother, he did not seem to have considered how this would have compromised the authenticity of the child's expressed views. The test as to whether there had been a 'fundamental change of circumstances' had to be set high. The mother's application was a clear example of an attempt to reargue a case which had already been comprehensively determined. Asplin and Moylan LJJ agreed. The appeal would be allowed and an order made for the child's return to Italy. The child would not be added as a party to proceedings; to do so would only serve to heighten the conflict that he had struggled to avoid. Judgment, 04/03/2021, free
- The Swiss father applied under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention for jurisdiction to be transferred to Switzerland, where the two-year-old daughter currently lived with him. The application was opposed by the British mother and the guardian. It was agreed that the daughter had been abducted from England in June 2020, when the paternal grandparents had paid for a private jet to take the father and daughter to Switzerland. The mother had not seen the daughter in person since August 2020. Arbuthnot J found that the court could not transfer these proceedings under Brussels IIa, and Article 8 of the Hague Convention did not apply in a case of wrongful removal unless the conditions in Article 7(1)(a) or (b) had been met. In her judgment, the courts here were better placed to determine the daughter's best interests. Delay was also a significant factor: this was a very young child, and her living arrangements should be determined much sooner than Swiss proceedings would allow. If there was a discretion to transfer under Article 8, Arbuthnot J would not have exercised it. There was no alternative power to transfer under the Family Law Act, and if there were, she would have exercised her discretion to not transfer the proceedings. The question of contact would be decided separately. Judgment, 29/04/2021, free
Family Law Hub