- Everything (27)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (12)
- News (0)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (0)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (15)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- Appeal which centred on the H's belated challenge to England being the correct jurisdiction for the divorce and the failure of an adjournment application based on the H's ill-health. Judgment, 18/02/2014, free
- An unusual case where the English court was first seised of the parties' divorce proceedings. The husband then arranged for the divorce proceedings by mutual consent to be issued in the Spanish court. The English proceedings were then stayed (and subsequently dismissed) on the primary ground that the parties had entered into an agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the wife undertook that she had abandoned the English divorce proceedings, so that she was estopped from arguing that those proceedings remained extant. The wife argued that the effect of the Council Regulation No 2201/2003 was to prevent the court implementing any agreement by the parties as to the appropriate jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. It was submitted that the effect of articles 16 and 19 of the Council Regulation was to give jurisdiction to the court first seised of the matter, and to require the second court to decline jurisdiction in favour of the first court. In this case, the English court was seised first, and accordingly no subsequent agreement of any kind could displace its jurisdiction. Lord Justice Vos ruled that the judge was wrong to order a stay of the proceedings on the basis of the Agreement. He ought to have held that the provisions of article 19 of the Council Regulation were applicable and could not be overridden by the Agreement. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the proceedings should be taken to have lapsed could not succeed. Judgment, 29/01/2014, free
- Application by the F to stay a judge's order that the child lives with the M, in circumstances where the local authority's psychiatric assessment of the M was said not to be as comprehensive as it should be. Application granted. Judgment, 11/10/2013, free
- Judgment, 06/07/2012, free
- Judgment, 12/07/2007, free