- Everything (546)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (2)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (3)
- Case note (171)
- News (92)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (9)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (33)
- Judgment (221)
- Practice direction (2)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The wife applied to strike out the husband's claim for damages in respect of deceit. A DNA test had revealed that he was not the biological father of their child. Two issues were before Cohen J: whether the tort of deceit could relate to paternity fraud between husband and wife, and, if it could, whether it could run as a separate cause of action in parallel with financial remedy proceedings, rather than being an abuse or obstruction of the court's process. As to the former, Cohen J's view was that the tort of deceit could exist between husband and wife in respect of intimate matters, but he did not need to make a concluded finding on this issue. By reference to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) he found that the claim form and particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and were indeed an abuse of the court's process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The claim was struck out. Judgment, 30/11/2019, free
- An application was made for recognition of a 2009 marriage as valid. The applicant, born female, had lived as a man from 1990, but had not obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate once they became available in 2005, and hence was still legally female at the time of the marriage, when same sex marriage was not yet legal. This had caused problems with the Department of Work and Pensions regarding pension entitlement. Cobb J considered the case law and stated that, both now and at the time of the marriage in 2009, the applicant must be treated by the court as being legally a woman. The United Kingdom had not failed to provide a legal mechanism for the recognition of the relationship, since the couple could enter a civil partnership, marry as a same-sex couple, or marry as an opposite-sex couple after obtaining a gender recognition certificate. At the relevant time a marriage between two female partners was void at its inception and the court did not have the power to make the declaration sought. Judgment, 28/11/2019, free
- The mother had been in Poland with the daughter for two years, after a wrongful retention. The Polish court had refused the father's application under the 1980 Hague Convention in view of allegations of sexual abuse made against the father and paternal grandfather. The father now applied for the daughter's return under Article 11(7) of Brussels II Revised. Mr Teertha Gupta QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, did not accept that the mother had been disenfranchised by the process. The question for him was whether it was in the child's best interests to return here, in order for a court to make enquiries and determinations about her best interests. The Guardian's position was that the child should be returned with immediate effect for assessment. Mr Teertha Gupta QC concluded that he had no alternative but to order the child's return. Judgment, 28/11/2019, free
- Leave to apply for financial relief had been granted to the wife at an ex parte hearing under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to set it aside. The parties lived only in Russia throughout the marriage, and had become very wealthy during the 1990s. There had been a blizzard of litigation since the divorce. The husband alleged that Cohen J had been materially misled by the wife's representatives when making the order. Cohen J regretted having been persuaded to hear the application without notice, and decided that the grant of leave was indeed given as a result of the court being misled, . The leave to apply for financial relief was set aside. The wife's application was considered afresh and dismissed. Her case was not appropriate for determination in England and Wales. Judgment, 12/11/2019, free
- The husband applied for various orders relating to a divorce to be set aside, including the decree absolute. He challenged the deemed service of the divorce petition. The wife had been granted the divorce in England and then remarried, while the husband had later petitioned for divorce in Scotland. If the earlier divorce was set aside, the husband would retain a right of residence due to the marriage exceeding three years in length. Lieven J DBE held that to the extent that there had been any procedural errors in this case, they did not render the subsequent orders void, and to the extent that they rendered them voidable she declined to exercise her discretion to set them aside. Judgment, 23/10/2019, free
- An application for a declaration that a Nigerian divorce certificate was not entitled to recognition in England and Wales because the marriage had not in fact taken place. Holman J found that this application did not fall within any of the purposes listed in section 55 of the Family Law Act 1986. The court was not empowered to make the requested declaration and the application was dismissed. Judgment, 20/09/2019, free
- The petitioner wished to remarry, but the decree abolute could not be found, by him, or by the court, the files having apparently been destroyed. The former wife was able to find her copy. Mostyn J made a declaration that the former wife's copy was an authentic and accurate copy of a certified copy, and the marriage had indeed been dissolved. Judgment, 01/08/2019, free
- The mother applied for a declaration that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and for orders that would prohibit the father from removing the child from her care or from that jurisdiction, in circumstances where the Sweileh Sharia Court of Jordan had issued a without notice order requiring her to place the child in the father's care immediately. MacDonald J was wholly satisfied that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and thus the court had jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility. It was in the child's best interests for the English court to decide the welfare issues between the parents. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
- A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine the length of the marriage, the impact of the separation agreement, and whether there was any marital acquest. Cohen J concluded that the parties, a businesswoman and an artist, separated in 2004. There was no marital acquest; the wife had been dependent upon her family's wealth throughout. The agreement had been what the husband had sought. The only ground for vitiating the agreement would be if it did not meet his needs. Judgment, 27/06/2019, free
- The wife had applied for an occupation order for a property. The husband had claimed that the marriage certificate was a forgery. The judge found that there was a marriage and the husband was a serial liar. The husband now sought permission to appeal the findings and the consequent orders, and an extension of time to do so. Williams J allowed the appeal, on the basis that the hearing was procedurally irregular and the outcome consequently unjust. The matter was remitted to the Family Court. Judgment, 25/06/2019, free