Family Law Hub

Welcome to the Family Law Hub

Know-how, update and training for the private family lawyer. Click here to find out more..

New to Family Law Hub

  • Z v Y [2019] EWHC 2255 (Fam) The father would not give consent for his seven-year-old daughter to have brain surgery to alleviate her drug resistant epilepsy, and so the mother applied for a specific issue order. There was a 1 in 2 chance of the procedure being successful. The risk to the child's life could be as high as 1 in 500, but there was a 1 in 250 risk to her life each year from the epilepsy if uncontrolled. Taking all matters into account, and guided by the paramount question of the child's welfare, Gwynneth Knowles J made a specific issue order to the effect that the surgery should take place. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free
  • AB v CD (No 2) [2019] EWHC 2244 (Fam) The questions were whether a child should be told of his biological father, whether the husband (the psychological father) should be allowed to take the child on holiday to France, and what directions should be given relating to a deceit claim. The mother did not want the child to be told, and the biological father denied his paternity. Cohen J decided that the child should be told when an independent social worker, agreed upon by the parents, thought the time was right. He refused permission for the holiday, not being confident that the child's return could be achieved if the husband took him to the UAE. Cohen J allowed the mother's application to strike out the deceit claim to proceed to a hearing. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free
  • Seven Justices appointed to the High Court The appointments will take effect from 3 September 2019 and 1 October 2019 respectively. News, 13/08/2019, free
  • R v P (No 2) [2019] EWHC 2175 (Fam) The mother applied to change the daughter's surname to that of her second husband. As well as applying for contact under article 21 of the Hague Convention, the father wanted to know the daughter's school and GP. He had a history of violent and threatening behaviour towards the mother and child. Theis J decided that the mother should be permitted to withhold that information, but refused the application to change the daughter's surname, because such a step would not meet her welfare needs. Judgment, 13/08/2019, free
  • Joy v Joy [2019] EWHC 2152 (Fam) The issue was whether or not Cohen J should determine, almost certainly by its dismissal, the wife's application for capital orders against the husband or whether he should further adjourn her capital claims. The husband had settled a trust with a very large sum of money, from which he had been irrevocably excluded after the marriage had broken down, and was in arrears with his periodical payments, but was living comfortably. Cohen J found that dismissing the wife's capital claims would be a matter of last resort, and adjourned them, with the proviso that they would be dismissed unless an application to restore them was made by 31 July 2022. Judgment, 07/08/2019, free
  • R (A Child: Appeal: Termination of Contact) [2019] EWHC 132 In a tweet: Appeal by father against a decision to order only indirect contact between he and his son part allowed in complex Children Act proceedings with a private and public law interface. Case note, 06/08/2019, members only
  • Re C (A Child) [2019] EWHC 131 Case note for Re C (A Child) [2019] EWHC 131. Case note, 06/08/2019, members only
  • Shokrollah-Babaee v Shokrollah-Babae [2019] EWHC 2135 (Fam) Whether a judge who conducted an FDR appointment in protracted financial remedy proceedings could later hear applications in relation to the substantive order made in those same proceedings. The hearing was well under way when the husband reminded Holman J of the earlier FDR appointment. Both parties urged the judge to waive the rule, making reference to the overriding objective. He held that any waiver would run totally contrary to the absolute prohibition that the rule currently provides, and brought the hearing to a complete halt. It would have to be heard from scratch before another judge. Judgment, 05/08/2019, free
  • Power v Vidal [2019] EWHC 2101 (Fam) 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
  • Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 The couple married in 2016 after a long relationship, and the husband died later that year. The appeal was concerned with whether an application under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 could be made out of time, whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust instead of outright provision amounted to reasonable financial provision, and the relevance of a "stand-still agreement" in place while an out of court settlement was pursued. Asplin LJ found that the explanation for the lapse of time in this case was clear, and it had been wrong of the judge to find that the wife had received sufficient advice about the time limit and the 1975 Act. King LJ and Baker LJ agreed. The court exercised the power in s 4 of the 1975 Act to allow the wife to bring a claim out of time. Judgment, 31/07/2019, free

Don't miss

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.

Bookmark this item