- Cafcass has published its strategic delivery priorities which will implement the Cafcass Strategic Plan – published in September 2019. News, 26/03/2021, free
- Cafcass has published updated guidance which outlines the arrangements that are currently being made for Family Court Advisers (FCAs) to see children and families, work in Cafcass offices and attend court. News, 26/03/2021, free
- Move coincides with introduction of the Single Family Court in April 2014 News, 06/11/2013, free
-
Calculating ‘reasonable’ and ‘immediate’ needs in MPS applications: Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1The Court of Appeal considered how a court should assess reasonable and immediate needs when faced with an application for maintenance pending suit. News, 14/01/2021, free
- Now signatories to 1996 Child Protection and 2007 Child Support Conventions News, 23/05/2017, free
- A simplified template has been introduced to make management easier. News, 27/05/2014, free
- It is essential for the proper administration of family justice that those who lack capacity to litigate in the Family Court are quickly identified, assessed, and supported. To that end, the Family Justice Council has released guidance in order to assist Judges in the Family Court to resolve capacity issues concerning parties to family law proceedings. News, 27/04/2018, free
- A case study about how HMCTS put users at the heart of a process that provides benefits to separating couples with a simple, quick, web-based application. News, 24/09/2020, free
- The case concerned an application by the husband to set aside: a) an order for deemed service of a divorce petition; b) all orders which stemmed from that petition (certificate of entitlement, decree nisi, decree absolute). The question for the court was: did the alleged procedural errors in service render the orders void or voidable? The court concluded that: a) under the Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”) the alleged errors in service would not necessarily render these orders void; b) when considering the prejudice to both parties, this was not a case where the orders were void; d) if the orders were voidable the court would not exercise its discretion and set aside the orders. The husband’s application was dismissed. News, 13/12/2019, free
- The hearing concerned applications: for costs, for a general civil restraint order, and for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against “an exceptionally vexatious litigant”. News, 14/11/2019, free
Family Law Hub