- 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)
- Cases of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) added to the FGM Enhanced Dataset collection platform between 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2019 England. News, 28/05/2019, free
- Information on the number of cases reported to the government’s Forced Marriage Unit via its public helpline and email inbox from 1 January to 31 December 2018. News, 28/05/2019, 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
- The wife's divorce petition had been stayed on the basis that proceedings had already begun in Italy. On appeal, the question was whether the Italian court was still seised of proceedings. Moylan LJ held that this was for the Italian court to determine, but allowed the wife's appeal to the extent that English proceedings were adjourned, rather than stayed. Baker LJ agreed. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free
- The mother appealed against an order for the return of the child to Australia. The original retention of the child took place in Uganda, a country not party to the Hague Convention 1980. In Moylan LJ's view, a retention which takes place other than in a Contracting State is a retention which is justiciable under the Convention in a Contracting State, if and when the child travels to a Convention State. There is no need for removal to be to a Contracting State, nor is there any need for the retention to be in a Contracting State. McCombe LJ and Leggatt LJ agreed. Judgment, 23/04/2019, free