Family Law Hub

Civil Procedure Rules 1998

Rule, published: 31/12/1998

Topics

Items referring to this

  • JG v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 656 Appeal of judicial review proceedings concerning funding of an expert report for a child joined as a party to contact and residence applications and where the parents represented themselves. The LSC's decision not to fund the report was declared unlawful. Judgment, 22/05/2014, free
  • A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104 A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • A (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 871 Appeals arising from Schedule 1 claims concerning correction of a previous judgment in the proceedings and whether the father should not be penalised for failing to complete an incorrect version of Form E as directed. Appeals dimissed. Judgment, 27/06/2014, free
  • A v B [2018] EWFC 4 Ex-wife's argument that the ex-husband's claim for financial provision 24 years after their divorce should be struck out as an abuse of process was rejected. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2103 (QB) Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
  • AB v CD [2016] EWHC 10 (Fam) Application by a former husband to set aside a consent order on the basis that, at the time of the agreement, his former wife failed to make full and frank disclosure in relation to a company of which she was both a director and shareholder. It was his case that the non-disclosure upon which he relies was a material factor in that he entered into the agreement to compromise his financial claims arising in the divorce proceedings on the basis of incomplete (and, on his case, misleading) information. Cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil considered. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • AB v CD [2016] EWHC 2482 (Fam) Costs hearing which ruled that the W should pay the H 50% of his costs relating to his successful application that a consent order should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the W. Judgment, 11/10/2016, free
  • Aburn v Aburn [2016] EWCA Civ 72 Appeal against part of an order providing for an automatic increase in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife following the date upon which the youngest child ceased privately funded secondary education. Appeal allowed and that part of the order was set aside. Judgment, 04/02/2016, free
  • Ahmad v Wood & Anor [2018] EWHC 996 (QB) In this financial remedy case, the Claimant showed that there was sufficient evidence to show that further material should have been before the District Judge and that there was a substantial chance that such material would have led to a materially different order. In respect of his damages claim, the court ruled that the alleged consequential losses set out in the Particulars of Claim were outside the scope of the Defendants' duty and as such are irrecoverable; the damages claim would therefore need to be reformulated. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Al-Baker v Al-Baker [2015] EWHC 3725 (Fam) Application by wife for a reference to the police of her allegation of perjury against the husband in her attempt to enforce a FR order. The application was dismissed. Mr Justice Mostyn also confirmed that, contrary to a previous order he had made, a European arrest warrant cannot be ordered for contempt of court in civil proceedings, even if they result in a sentence of imprisonment. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Ambrosiadou v Coward [2013] EWHC 58 (QB) Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • Arif v Zar and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 986 Case note, 20/07/2012, free
  • B v A [2012] EWHC 3127 (Fam) Judgment, 11/12/2012, free
  • Bloom v Bloom [2018] EWFC B10 Wife's application that judgments in these financial remedy proceedings, where the husband had been found to have defrauded her parents, should be published un-anonymised. The application was granted. Judgment, 16/03/2018, free
  • Bromfield v Bromfield [2015] UKPC 19 Appeal by wife against orders in Jamaican finance proceedings that, in brief, had seen the suspension of periodical payments replaced with a full and final settlement and also involved consideration of an equitable interest under the Married Women's Property Act. The orders were set aside and issues to be re-heard. Judgment, 29/04/2015, free
  • Case V (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 2356 (Fam) In another case involving administrative problems at a fertility clinic, the applicant was granted a parental order in respect of the child that was born following IVF treatment. Sir James Munby was particularly scathing about the failure by the clinic to pay the applicant's costs in a timely way. Judgment, 03/10/2016, free
  • Chiva v Chiva [2014] EWCA Civ 1558 Application by wife for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, order in financial remedy proceedings where she had been awarded 113k out of the total pot of £321k and argued, among other things, that spousal maintenance was too low, there was insufficient capital to rehouse her and that this was a needs not a division case. Application granted but appeal refused. Judgment, 03/12/2014, free
  • CS v ACS & Anor [2015] EWHC 1005 (Fam) Judgment from the President concerning whether it was open for a wife to apply to set aside an order for reasons of non-disclosure or whether she was required to appeal as per FPR PD30A. He concludes that the relevant part of PD30A is ultra vires so the wife can proceed without court permission. Judgment, 17/04/2015, free
  • Dellal v Dellal & Ors [2015] EWHC 907 (Fam) Judgment in Inheritance Act proceedings where the claimant (the deceased's 2nd wife) was seeking on order against the deemed "net estate", which she claimed was larger than that declared to HMRC and had been diminished by gifts to other family members. Mostyn J ordered that further documents be disclosed so that the merits of the claim could be considered, rejecting the defendants application for summary judgment. Judgment, 01/04/2015, free
  • EA v NA [2018] EWHC 583 (Fam) Declaration sought that the husband, who had not been heard of since 2009, had died Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • Family Justice & Procedure Update 2012 Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • G (A Minor) & Z (A Minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam) Judgment, 03/02/2013, free
  • G (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1017 F's appeal against orders which refused direct contact between him and his children, imposed a s.91(14) order for a period of five years and that F, who was a litigant in person before the court, should pay the mother's costs. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 07/08/2013, free
  • Gorbunova v Berezovsky & Ors [2013] EWHC 76 (Ch) Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • H v Dent & Ors [2015] EWHC 2228 (Fam) Application for costs by a solicitor, in a personal capacity, arising from committal applications against her and Cafcass officers involved in private law children proceedings. The applicant was awarded costs on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 29/07/2015, free
  • Hart v Hart [2018] EWCA Civ 1053 Appeal against committal orders in relation to breach of an undertaking and 2 other orders after the court found that the husband had not disclosed certain documents in this long running financial provision case. The appeals were dismissed apart from the one in relation to the breach of the undertaking. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • HH v BLW [2012] EWHC 2199 (Fam) Judgment, 31/07/2012, free
  • JP v NP [2014] EWHC 1101 (Fam) Appeal by wife against decision to set aside a financial remedy order on the grounds that by giving judgment prior to the granting of decree nisi the judge had made an made an order in breach of s23 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which prohibits the making of an order in financial remedy proceedings prior to decree nisi. Appeal allowed and costs order made against the husband. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • K (A child - Appeal against a costs order within private law proceedings) [2014] EWCC B36 (Fam) Appeal against order for costs arising from from private contact and residence proceedings. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • K (Remo - Power of Magistrates To Issue Bench Warrant) [2017] EWFC 27 The father of the child had failed to make monthly payments to the mother following an order made in Poland. Believing the father to be living and working in the UK, the mother applied for enforcement of the order under EU Council Regulation 4/2009 but attempts to trace the father have so far been unsuccessful and he has not yet been served with an order to attend court. The judge in this case confirmed that s.31E MFPA 1984 authorises magistrates to issue a warrant to secure the attendance of an alleged maintenance defaulter who fails to appear in response to their summons (although it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of the magistrates to issue a warrant in this case if the father was served and failed to attend has not yet directly arisen). Judgment, 15/05/2017, free
  • K v D [2013] EWHC 796 (Fam) Application to strike out the F's committal application issued against members of the M's family who had given undertakings that they would assist in the search for the child who had been abducted by the M. Judgment, 18/07/2013, free
  • L (Costs of Children Proceedings) [2014] EWCA Civ 1437 Judgment concerning costs in private law children proceedings. Gloster LJ allows the mother's appeal against a costs order as conduct was not 'unreasonable or reprehensible' and therefore the judge had been wrong in principle to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2014, free
  • Leicester City Council v Chhatbar & Anor [2014] EWHC 830 (Fam) Hague Convention case where the child, whom the judge ruled was habitually resident in the UK and had been made a ward of court soon after birth, had been taken to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. At the time the father was under an order of probation awarded by a criminal court in relation to an offence of domestic violence. The judge agreed that the name of the father and the child could be made public, emphasising that "this is not a secret court." Judgment, 24/03/2014, free
  • Lindner v Rawlins [2015] EWCA Civ 61 Appeal by H against a refusal to make an order to secure a witness statement from the police that he thought would assist him in proving allegations of his wife's unreasonable behaviour. Appeal dismissed, partly because it was a case management decision and the CoA should only interfere in rare circumstances, and partly because the judge was aware of the need to meet the overriding objective of the FPR to deal with cases expeditiously. Black LJ also notes that the couple could have been divorced by consent by now as 2 years had passed since separation. Judgment, 11/02/2015, free
  • Lothschutz v Vogel [2014] EWHC 473 (QB) Application by H for costs orders to be set aside after a European Enforcement Order Certificate in relation to maintenance was rescinded by the German notary. Judgment, 28/02/2014, free
  • M (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 743 Appeal against a committal order made against a father who had breached his undertakings to the court not to publish information regarding contact proceedings on a social media website. Judgment, 26/06/2013, free
  • M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1170 The recorder had made a residence order in favour of the mother but refused to make findings against the intervener in relation to incidents of sexual abuse alleged by the child or to categorise admitted behaviours as having sinister sexual overtones or abusive connotation. This was an appeal against that refusal. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the final order was that sought by the appellants and there was no order, judgment or determination for appeal. The child's reported upset at the recorder’s failure to make findings against the intervener, or that of any other complainant in similar circumstances, did not elevate a negative finding to one “pregnant with legal consequences”. Judgment, 04/10/2013, free
  • M v F [2016] EWHC B12 (Fam) The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of contested Schedule 1 Children Act proceedings that resulted in an order against the father following a claim being brought by the mother on the child's behalf. Judgment, 04/11/2016, free
  • M v M [2013] EWHC 3372 (Fam) Wife was seeking costs in the region of £1.5m against the Husband and the Companies (which had said they were the beneficial owners of various properties). Looking at the factors set out in Part 28.3 and CPR Part 44.2(4) there was no doubt that the conduct of both the Husband and the Companies had been such that the making of an order for costs against both the Husband and the Companies was inevitable. The only outstanding issue was as to the basis of assessment; indemnity or standard. Litigation conduct of the type exhibited by the Husband and, at his direction, the Companies, was of the most extreme type and so therefore costs were assessed on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 27/11/2013, free
  • M v W [2014] EWHC 925 (Fam) Application to set aside leave to apply for financial provision under Part III of the MFPA 1984 and to strike out the claim where the applicant husband was not on notice when leave was granted and he claimed that this was a 'second bite of the cherry' after proceedings in New Zealand. Leave refused. Judgment, 03/04/2014, free
  • Mann v Mann [2014] EWHC 537 (Fam) In these long running financial proceedings, the parties had agreed to attempt mediation, and the wife undertook not to make any further statutory demand prior to the conclusion of the mediation. The wife maintained that it was an implied term of the agreement that the husband would pay the rent on a substitute property, and he had breached this implied term. She subsequently issued an application for general enforcement under FPR 2010 rule 33.3(2)(b) for a sum of nearly £2m. The husband argued that the wife was debarred from proceeding to enforce by virtue of the agreement to mediate. The judge ruled that the agreement could not be given effect so as to prevent the wife from applying for enforcement until and unless mediation has taken place. A bar of that nature would operate as a restriction on the right to apply to the court. The most that could be done in balancing the obligation to mediate under the agreement and the right of access to justice was for an adjournment to be ordered for a specified period to give the parties a final opportunity to engage in ADR and an adjournment was made for 8 weeks. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • MAP v RAP [2013] EWHC 4784 (Fam) Application to appeal a consent order primarily on the grounds that the wife did not have capacity to give consent at the time of the agreement. Application allowed. Judgment, 27/08/2014, free
  • Maughan v Wilmot [2014] EWHC 1288 (Fam) Application by former wife for an appointment of a Receiver under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act, an extended civil restraint order pursuant to Rule 4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and an extension of a freezing injunction in a case where the former husband had defaulted on child maintenance payments for some years. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free
  • Morris v Donaldson [2013] EWHC 4257 (QB) Claimant's application for an order allowing him into the property he had shared with the defendant so that he could remove his possessions. Judgment, 18/02/2014, free
  • Norman v Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 120 Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application to set aside a consent order in financial remedy proceedings which was made in 2005. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/03/2017, free
  • P v A Local Authority [2016] EWHC 2779 (Fam) A statutory charge was not and could not be applicable to the applicant's award of damages in a HRA claim. Judgment, 14/11/2016, free
  • PG v TW (No 2) (Child: Financial Provision) [2012] EWHC B36 (Fam) Judgment, 22/03/2013, free
  • Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655 Appeal against grant of decree nisi as being undefended where the appellant alleged that his answer to the divorce petition had been posted in time. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 21/05/2014, free
  • R (Closed Material Procedure: Special Advocates : Funding) [2017] EWHC 1793 (Fam) The issue which arose for determination in this case was how the costs of an instructed Special Advocate should be funded in family proceedings where closed material held by the police related to a conspiracy to murder the father. The police were ordered to fund the Special Advocate. Judgment, 18/07/2017, free
  • Randall v Randall [2016] EWCA Civ 494 As part of their divorce settlement, the parties agreed that the ex-wife would keep the first £100,000 of any inheritance from her mother and the balance over that amount would be split equally between them. The mother left exactly £100,000 to the ex-wife with the remaining £150,000 going to the ex-wife's children. The ex-husband brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the ex-wife's mother's will, alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The Deputy Master decided that H had no sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. The ex-husband's appeal against that decision was allowed. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Rezaeipoor v Arabhalvai & Anor [2012] EWHC 146 (Ch) Judgment, 10/01/2013, free
  • Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009 Appeal against a decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • RS v LS & LMP [2018] EWHC 449 (Fam) Application by wife to set aside judgment for costs obtained by her former solicitors, who acted for her in the context of financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 12/03/2018, free
  • Sargespace Limited v Eustace [2013] EWHC 2944 (QB) Judgment, 08/10/2013, free
  • SB v MB (Costs) [2014] EWHC 3721 (Fam) An order for costs was made against the Father because he had deliberately sought to obscure his daughter's habitual residence which was found to be the UK not Israel. In the words of the judge: "he knew full well how unhappy his daughter had been [in Israel].He was simply determined to get the outcome to the litigation he wanted..." Judgment, 13/11/2014, free
  • Schedule 1 Children Act Applications: Practice, Procedure & Problems Training note, 01/08/2012, members only
  • Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam) ToLATA case in which Mr Justice Holman expressed his exasperation at the disproportionate costs that had been incurred relative to the value of the available assets, and the volume of documentation which had been produced in contravention of PD 27A, limiting bundles to 350 pages of A4 unless the court gives permission otherwise. Judgment, 05/12/2014, free
  • Singh v Singh & Singh [2012] EWHC 615 (Ch) Judgment, 17/09/2012, free
  • SJ (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Application To Set Aside) [2014] EWHC 58 (Fam) The child was the subject of proceedings in England and Spain. The English court had declared that she was habitually resident in the UK and made other consequential directions. The Spanish court had refused to return her to this jurisdiction pursuant to the Hague Convention. M's application was to set aside declarations made by the English Court as to (i) habitual residence (ii) wrongful retention. Alternatively she invited the court to reassess habitual residence as at today's date. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • SKA and PLM v CRH [2012] EWHC 2236 (QB) Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
  • Smith v Bottomley & Coach House Properties Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 953 Cohabitation case in which the judge at first instance ruled that the claimant was entitled to a share in properties owned by the first defendant (her former partner) or the second defendant ("the Company", which was in effect a company wholly owned and controlled by the first defendant), on the basis of a promise or promises made by her ex-partner as to the share she would have in those properties and detrimental reliance by her on such promise or promises. Judgment, 31/07/2013, free
  • Spencer v Anderson (Paternity Testing: Jurisdiction) [2016] EWHC 851 (Fam) These proceedings raise the issue of whether the Court can direct scientific testing of the DNA of a person who has died for the purpose of providing evidence of paternity. Judgment, 20/04/2016, free
  • T v R (Maintenance after remarriage: agreement) [2016] EWFC 26 Wife was applying to have the husband's application to vary the terms of a maintenance order, which included maintenance to be paid after her re-marriage, struck out on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The application was refused. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • Tchenguiz and others v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 Judgment, 29/07/2010, free
  • Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2012] EWHC 4047 (Fam) Directions in respect of a W's application for disclosure of documents from H which she said could potentially be relevant to two issues: 1) whether certain trusts were nuptial and 2) whether the assets of those trusts were resources available, or likely to be available, to H. Judgment, 03/06/2013, free
  • TF v FF [2013] EWHC 390 (Fam) Judgment, 06/03/2013, free
  • Thomas v Jeffery & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 693 Judgment, 04/06/2012, free
  • Thursfield v Thursfield [2012] EWHC 3742 (Ch) Judgment, 03/01/2013, free
  • Thursfield v Thursfield [2013] EWCA Civ 840 Appeal brought by the defendant in the proceedings against an order by which the defendant was ordered to be committed to prison for 24 months for contempt of court consisting of his breaches of an earlier order by way of a disclosure order ancillary to a freezing order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 15/07/2013, free
  • US v SR [2014] EWFC 24 A relatively high value financial provision case where the parties had already spent more than £1m in legal fees. The judge reached a decision on distribution which "represent[ed] a fair outcome bearing in mind (i) the existence of non-matrimonial property; (ii) reattribution issues; (iii) the nature of the assets which each will retain at conclusion of proceedings and (iv) sharing." Judgment, 21/08/2014, free
  • W v M (ToLATA Proceedings: Anonymity) [2012] EWHC 1679 (Fam) Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • W v W [2012] EWHC 2469 (Fam) Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Whittingham v Whittingham [2017] EWHC 3318 (Fam) In these long running and costly financial provision proceedings, the husband's appeal against an interim order pending appeal which refused to discharge the receiver was dismissed. Judgment, 20/12/2017, free
  • X (A Child : foreign surrogacy) [2018] EWFC 15 Parental order was granted to a married couple where the marriage was platonic. The President confirmed that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage. Judgment, 14/03/2018, free
  • XCC v AA [2012] EWHC 2183 (COP) Judgment, 18/09/2012, free

Published: 31/12/1998

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.