- 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 father had applied for the return of the children from Ukraine, where they had been kept for ten months. Mostyn J had stayed the application, in anticipation of the Ukrainian court reinstating the father's application there. This did not happen, so the stay was lifted and the application would be heard. Directions were given, but the judge also urged the parties to explore a mediated solution to the case. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
- The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, free
- The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
- Ms O sought a declaration, under s 55(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, that she had married Mr B-M in Ghana. Mr B-M denied that there had been a marriage ceremony, or at least not one to which he had consented. Much of the ceremony had been conducted in languages Mr B-M did not speak, and it had been described as an engagement ceremony. Mr Recorder Allen QC held that what happened was sufficient to be considered a customary marriage ceremony, but that Ms O did not believe she was getting married and Mr B-M and his family had not consented to a marriage. Therefore, their marriage could not be recognised under English law and Ms O's application failed. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free
- The wife made a claim for financial relief after a divorce in Russia. A claim for £2m was made against her by a company of which the husband had been the sole director. She claimed that this was a sham. The husband did not engage at all with the court during the proceedings, though the company did, and he gave no disclosure of his means. Holman J was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order for financial relief, and that an award of £5m to the wife, leaving at least £17m to the husband, would not do him any injustice. It was less than the wife would have been awarded had all the proceedings taken place in England and Wales. The wife was also entitled to an order for costs against the company and the husband. The judge recognised, however, that enforcement of his orders would be difficult. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
- The mother made an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the son to New Zealand. The father had expressed concerns about the child's well-being in his mother's care. Darren Howe QC had to proceed on the basis that there was a risk of harm, but he noted that there had been improvements in the mother's parenting, and accepted her undertaking to prevent contact between her partner and the child. The father had not proved a grave risk of harm or an otherwise intolerable situation for the son and the defence therefore failed. An order would be made for the return of the son to New Zealand. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
- The mother challenged the recognition of a Dubai divorce, because she sought to vest the courts of England and Wales with jurisdiction to make orders in respect of the child. Moylan LJ found that the judge had conducted an extensive analysis of the evidence, and the analysis had not been shown to be partial or to give insufficient weight to the mother's situation. The judge was entitled to decide that the mother had had "a full opportunity to participate" in the process, and that the recognition of the Dubai divorce should not be refused. Baker LJ agreed. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
- Applications were made to redact a previous judgment concerning international child abduction, on the basis that criminal charges might be brought. Mostyn J said that such redactions would rob the judgment of the coercive effect that it was designed to achieve, and no decision to charge had yet been made. The applications were rejected. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
- The wife resided in Tenerife and Russia, the husband in London. Following divorce proceedings in Russia, the wife applied for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales, pursuant to section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Williams J held that her claim could not be characterised as wholly unmeritorious, and leave was granted. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
- Whether the English courts had jurisdiction under Article 3, Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa) for a wife to apply for a divorce in England. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free