- The father appealed concerning three aspects of a case management order made pursuant to Children Act 1989 proceedings. He wished to enforce/vary a child arrangements order, and contended that the judge had erred in refusing to order a fact-finding hearing to investigate his allegations of parental alienation, limiting the scope of the local authority's section 7 report, and refusing to appoint a Children's Guardian under FPR 16.4. The mother's position was that the father's application was part of a long-running campaign of meritless court applications aimed at undermining the current arrangements. Williams J allowed the appeal but only to a limited extent in respect of the remit of the section 7 report. The application would be remitted to the Central Family Court with a direction that an addendum section 7 report should be provided by Islington Children's Services regarding the son's expressed wishes in the light of the contact notes. In respect of all other grounds the appeal was refused. Williams J noted that the case illustrated the problems caused by the failure of parties and their advocates to focus on the real issues which the court had to grapple with at a time-limited FHDRA. Position statements which far exceeded the permitted length and did not clearly and succinctly identify the main issues to be determined were unhelpful. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free
- A judgment that, Knowles J said, endeavoured to provide a clear context for the claims brought by the former wife against some of the eleven respondents, and to then analyse and determine those claims, having taken account of a mass of documentary and oral evidence. The wife had been the victim of a series of schemes designed to put every penny of the husband’s wealth beyond her reach, a strategy designed to render her powerless by ensuring that, if she did not settle her claim for financial relief following their divorce on the husband’s terms, there would be no assets left for her to enforce against. Knowles J's decision was as follows. To grant relief to the wife against Counselor Trust: (a) as trustee of the Genus Trust, in the sum received from Cotor, the best estimate of which was US$650 million; (b) as trustee of the Arbaj Trust, US$36,624,946, CHF 4,000,000 and £1 million ; (c) as trustee of the Ladybird Trust, US$46,752,468, CHF 1,287,078.50, €76,918 and £128,100; and (d) as trustee of the Carnation Trust, US$455,363,485, and CHF 10,000; with joint and several liability where relevant to avoid double recovery. She granted relief to the wife against Sobaldo Establishment, in its capacity as trustee of the Longlaster Trust, in the sum of US$546,735,165. The relief granted against the eldest son, Temur, was (a) US$67,500,000 in respect of the claim for transfers of the Monetary Assets to him from Cotor in 2015 and 2016; (b) US$31,499,998 in respect of the claim for receipt of Monetary Assets previously held by Counselor Trust and/or Sobaldo Establishment between 2017 and 2019; and (c) RUB 531,560,331 in respect of the claim in respect of a Moscow property. His oral evidence had been preceded by his belated admissions of having significantly breached his disclosure obligations, described by Knowles J as "lamentable litigation conduct". She also granted the wife relief against Borderedge Ltd in the sum of €27,500,021.38. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free
- The American father, living in the USA, had applied for an order for his four-year-old son's immediate return there under the 1980 Hague Convention. The son had dual nationality and lived with his mother, a British national, in England. The son had been born in England. A marital settlement agreement had been agreed to the effect that the mother and child would relocate to the UK, with the child spending his school breaks with his father in the US, a minimum of three visits. The pandemic and quarantine restrictions had prevented this from happening as planned, and the father had filed a petition with the Circuit Court of his state for contempt and to modify custody. Mostyn J noted that "it is elementary that the 1980 Hague Convention can only be invoked where the child's habitual residence has not changed to the new state prior to the alleged act of removal or retention". The question of habitual residence was one of pure fact. In this case, there was no possible basis for saying that the removal was not lawful, and Mostyn J was completely satisfied that the mother had not harboured a dishonest intention to later deprive the father of his spending time rights. There had been no wrongful removal, nor any wrongful retention, and the Convention was not engaged because the son had plainly acquired habitual residence in England by the time in question. The father's application was dismissed. Judgment, 02/05/2021, 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
- The children, aged 8, 7 and 5, were all born in England and had been living with the father's brother in Nigeria since being abducted to that country by the father in 2019. The mother applied for an anti-suit injunction against the father, requiring him to discontinue Nigerian proceedings in respect of their children in circumstances where Lieven J had determined that: the courts of this country had jurisdiction over the children by reason of their habitual residence; England and Wales, rather than Nigeria, was the natural forum; and the English court was substantively seised of ongoing proceedings concerning wardship and the welfare of the children. The father and uncle had ignored and flouted numerous orders for contact, and the father had been arrested upon his return to England. Peel J considered whether the four required criteria for an anti-suit injunction were fulfilled: jurisdiction, a sufficient interest, an appropriate ground, and discretion. He found that they were, and had no hesitation in exercising his discretion in favour of making the order sought. The father was ordered to take the steps required of him in the Nigerian courts. Judgment, 28/04/2021, free
- The father was Japanese, and the mother was Polish Canadian, currently living in England. The father applied under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention for a contact order in respect of his 11-year-old son. There had been weekly telephone calls but no direct contact since 2018. The father was in substantial arrears of a maintenance pending suit order, and might face enforcement proceedings if returning to England. He proposed that contact should take place immediately in Japan. The mother's position was that it should take place initially in England before possibly, subject to the child's wishes, progressing to Japan. The Family Court Adviser raised the option of contact in France. In Peel J's view, it would be premature to make an order for contact in Japan. It would be against the son's wishes, and it was too soon to embark on such a major step. Although Japan was a Hague Convention signatory, he had no evidence as to the speed with which a return order would be made and implemented there, and the consequences for the son of being separated from his primary carer for a substantial period would be highly damaging. Peel J ordered that contact should take place in England, at first for one week in each of the summer and Christmas 2021 school holidays. The father would be ordered to lodge his passport with an appropriate firm at the beginning of each contact period. A prohibited steps order would be made preventing the father from removing the son from the mother's care (save for the purposes of contact) or removing him from this jurisdiction without her written consent. However, the making of this order would be conditional upon the mother not pursuing a judgment summons, or any other step leading to imprisonment of the father arising out of breach of the financial remedy order. If she was unwilling to give that assurance, the order would not be made in those terms. The quantum and duration of contact, and conditions, would be in the same terms, but the place of contact would be France. Judgment, 28/04/2021, free
- A hearing that had been listed for consideration of issues of contact between the father and the children, "subject to a review of the English court's position in the event that the Russian court accepts jurisdiction". There had since been a hearing of several days' duration before a court in Russia, which had clearly decided that it had jurisdiction to make substantive orders in relation to the children, that the children were habitually resident in Russia (notwithstanding that they were attending schools during term time in England), and that the children should reside with their mother at a place of their mother's choosing. In Holman J's view, he was obliged to "abstain" from exercising further jurisdiction over any matters which clearly fell within the territory of the Russian proceedings and judgment, though he noted that the father was appealing the previous order of the Family Court. With those appeals in mind, he declined to make an order permitting the mother's solicitors to release the passports: the mother had frankly said that if she were able to return with the children to Russia she would keep them there and not permit them to travel again to England until she was quite confident that she would not be "ensnared" by further legal proceedings. Judgment, 19/04/2021, free
- The application of the former wife for a financial remedy order arising from her marriage to her former husband. Both were UK nationals, who had met in 2005, married in 2011 and separated in 2019. They had lived in the United Arab Emirates for the duration of the marriage, and their child had been born there in 2015. The overall position was a joint deficit approaching £60,000; the only significant asset was a flat in Wales vested in the husband’s name. As well as the relevant factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Mr Recorder Salter bore in mind that the court's overall objective was to achieve a fair outcome. There was no place for discrimination between the husband and the wife and their respective roles. However, there were two primary factors which justified a departure from equality in this case: that it was a needs case, and the prior agreement reached between the parties. Over and above the amounts contained in the prior agreement – including an annual lump sum he reduced to £5,000 in view of the wife's move to England, where living costs were lower – he ordered that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of £12,500 within 56 days: £8,750 for six months’ rent, £2,250 for furniture, £1,500 towards the transportation of their pets to England. He would also have to pay £7,000 towards a car and driving lessons, and periodical payments in relation to the child of £1,000 per month. Mr Recorder Salter described the level of costs in the proceedings as "ruinous to the parties" and "utterly disproportionate to the assets involved". Issues had been pursued which did not merit any significant expenditure of costs, and warnings had gone ignored. He concluded that the wife should make a contribution of £10,000 towards the husband’s costs. Judgment, 19/04/2021, free
- An application concerning two children: a girl and a boy, aged 3 and 9. The mother and father had separated during 2016 and had since divorced. The mother and children had moved from London to the countryside for the lockdown, but the mother now wished to make that a permanent move. The question for the court was whether it was in the son's best interests to live with his father in London or with his mother and sister in the countryside. The Cafcass report had concluded that it would be better for the son to stay with his father. The single joint expert had not been asked to make a specific recommendation, but made it clear that she thought the partial separation from the mother had been damaging to the son's mental health. HHJ Lloyd-Jones was not impressed by the single joint expert as a witness. In his view, the mother's evidence suggested that she was seeking to mould the children's lives around her own plans, while the father's evidence indicated that he had "a clear grasp of what his son's best interests were". After considering the welfare checklist contained in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, and the issues involved in dividing the siblings, HHJ Lloyd-Jones decided that on weekdays the daughter would live with her mother and the son with the father, and they would spend the weekends together, alternating between the parents, half-terms with the mother, with other holidays split evenly between the parents. Judgment, 12/04/2021, free
- A fact-finding exercise within an application for a child arrangements order with regard to the younger of two half-brothers. The only evidence had been from the parents. The mother had accused the father of grabbing her by the threat, punching her, and emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour. In HHJ Robin Tolson QC's view, "the individual allegations of domestic violence in the Schedule advanced by the mother against the father were insignificant in themselves", and unlikely to affect child arrangements. It was also, he said, "necessary to factor in the effects of a system which encourages allegations of domestic abuse", as well as the mother's mental health issues. On the morning of the trial, the mother had added an allegation of rape. HHJ Robin Tolson QC found that everything turned on the credibility of the witnesses, and none of the allegations were proven beyond limited admissions made by the father. Those admissions did mean, however, that the mother was "a victim of domestic abuse". He decided that a guardian should be appointed for the child, and a direction was made for the relevant local authority to undertake an investigation of both children to determine whether public law proceedings should be issued. By consent, he directed a psychiatric assessment of the mother. He also made an order for the child to spend time with his father, supervised by an independent social worker, once the international quarantine rules permitted it. Judgment, 12/04/2021, free
Family Law Hub