- Everything (208)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (3)
- Case note (76)
- News (6)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (7)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (10)
- Judgment (105)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The hearing concerned applications: for costs, for a general civil restraint order, and for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against “an exceptionally vexatious litigant”. News, 14/11/2019, free
- Hearing at which all allegations made by mother against father were held to be untrue and the judge stated that there ought to be an immediate resumption of direct contact. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- An extended civil restraint order had not been sufficent to restrain the former husband's vexatious conduct. Mostyn J granted the former wife and the receiver orders for costs against the husband. He also made a general civil restraint order against him, calling it "one of the worst cases of vexatious litigation misconduct" that he had ever encountered. An order was also made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Judgment, 23/10/2019, free
- An appeal from orders for costs made against those responsible for keeping two children in the Ukraine, in breach of repeated orders of the High Court. This was described by Peter Jackson LJ as "the grossest breach of trust perpetrated by individuals who appear to consider obedience to the law to be optional and disobedience affordable". He considered that there was nothing remotely surprising about the orders made in this case, and indeed found it difficult to envisage any proper alternative. Patten LJ and Lindblom LJ agreed, and the appeals were dismissed. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
- The mother appealed against an order that she pay £109,394 in respect of the father's costs of a previous appeal. She had dropped that previous appeal after an attempt to bribe a Russian police officer (to instigate criminal charges against the father) led to her imprisonment. King LJ found that the judge had the jurisdiction to make the order for costs, and had made a decision within the ambit of his discretion. However, counsels' fees were unreasonable, and the appeal was allowed on that ground. The sum to be paid was reduced to £78,144. Underhill LJ and Moylan LJ agreed. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
- In a tweet: H’s application to strike out W’s FR claim on the grounds it was vexatious/already compromised was dismissed. Case note, 04/07/2019, members only
- Florence Jones, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, writes a case summary of Vilinova v Vilinov & Anor [2019] EWHC 1107 (Fam). Case note, 31/05/2019, members only
- 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 husband sought permission to proceed with committal proceedings against the wife for contempt of court, after she made false claims in court regarding her possession of a work by the Polish painter Caziel. Mostyn J declined permission; the husband could pursue the more serious matter of perjury. The husband would recover his costs of the enforcement application on the indemnity basis, and 50% of his costs of the committal proceedings on the standard basis. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free
- Appeal from the decision dismissing the amended application by the Appellant to set aside the order authorising substituted service on him of the bankruptcy petition, annul the bankruptcy order made against him and dismiss the bankruptcy petition. Judgment, 01/03/2019, free