The online news, case and webinar service for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Dictionary of Private Children Law book launch webinar
Introducing Advicenow’s Survival guide to pensions on divorce (‘PAG guide 2’)
Farming & White v White 20 years on.
Understanding and Protecting Pensions Sharing Orders
New to read
-
Publish and be damned: Barclay v Barclay [2021] EWFC 40
This case concerned an application to secure the publication of a financial remedies judgment and to report on the content of that hearing. The applicant was Lady Hiroko Barclay ('Lady Barclay') and the respondent was Sir Frederick Barclay ('Sir Frederick') (aged c. 86). Case note, 06/05/2021, free -
CLB v SLB [2021] EWHC 891 (Fam)
The father appealed concerning three aspects of a case management order made pursuant to Children Act 1989 proceedings. He wished to enforce/vary a child arrangements order, and contended that the judge had erred in refusing to order a fact-finding hearing to investigate his allegations of parental alienation, limiting the scope of the local authority's section 7 report, and refusing to appoint a Children's Guardian under FPR 16.4. The mother's position was that the father's application was part of a long-running campaign of meritless court applications aimed at undermining the current arrangements. Williams J allowed the appeal but only to a limited extent in respect of the remit of the section 7 report. The application would be remitted to the Central Family Court with a direction that an addendum section 7 report should be provided by Islington Children's Services regarding the son's expressed wishes in the light of the contact notes. In respect of all other grounds the appeal was refused. Williams J noted that the case illustrated the problems caused by the failure of parties and their advocates to focus on the real issues which the court had to grapple with at a time-limited FHDRA. Position statements which far exceeded the permitted length and did not clearly and succinctly identify the main issues to be determined were unhelpful. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free -
Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam)
A judgment that, Knowles J said, endeavoured to provide a clear context for the claims brought by the former wife against some of the eleven respondents, and to then analyse and determine those claims, having taken account of a mass of documentary and oral evidence. The wife had been the victim of a series of schemes designed to put every penny of the husband’s wealth beyond her reach, a strategy designed to render her powerless by ensuring that, if she did not settle her claim for financial relief following their divorce on the husband’s terms, there would be no assets left for her to enforce against. Knowles J's decision was as follows. To grant relief to the wife against Counselor Trust: (a) as trustee of the Genus Trust, in the sum received from Cotor, the best estimate of which was US$650 million; (b) as trustee of the Arbaj Trust, US$36,624,946, CHF 4,000,000 and £1 million ; (c) as trustee of the Ladybird Trust, US$46,752,468, CHF 1,287,078.50, €76,918 and £128,100; and (d) as trustee of the Carnation Trust, US$455,363,485, and CHF 10,000; with joint and several liability where relevant to avoid double recovery. She granted relief to the wife against Sobaldo Establishment, in its capacity as trustee of the Longlaster Trust, in the sum of US$546,735,165. The relief granted against the eldest son, Temur, was (a) US$67,500,000 in respect of the claim for transfers of the Monetary Assets to him from Cotor in 2015 and 2016; (b) US$31,499,998 in respect of the claim for receipt of Monetary Assets previously held by Counselor Trust and/or Sobaldo Establishment between 2017 and 2019; and (c) RUB 531,560,331 in respect of the claim in respect of a Moscow property. His oral evidence had been preceded by his belated admissions of having significantly breached his disclosure obligations, described by Knowles J as "lamentable litigation conduct". She also granted the wife relief against Borderedge Ltd in the sum of €27,500,021.38. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free -
AC v NC [2021] EWHC 946 (Fam)
The American father, living in the USA, had applied for an order for his four-year-old son's immediate return there under the 1980 Hague Convention. The son had dual nationality and lived with his mother, a British national, in England. The son had been born in England. A marital settlement agreement had been agreed to the effect that the mother and child would relocate to the UK, with the child spending his school breaks with his father in the US, a minimum of three visits. The pandemic and quarantine restrictions had prevented this from happening as planned, and the father had filed a petition with the Circuit Court of his state for contempt and to modify custody. Mostyn J noted that "it is elementary that the 1980 Hague Convention can only be invoked where the child's habitual residence has not changed to the new state prior to the alleged act of removal or retention". The question of habitual residence was one of pure fact. In this case, there was no possible basis for saying that the removal was not lawful, and Mostyn J was completely satisfied that the mother had not harboured a dishonest intention to later deprive the father of his spending time rights. There had been no wrongful removal, nor any wrongful retention, and the Convention was not engaged because the son had plainly acquired habitual residence in England by the time in question. The father's application was dismissed. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free -
No Scope for Limbo: AC v NC [2021] EWHC 946 (Fam)
Mostyn J dismissed a father’s application under the 1980 Hague Convention in which he claimed that an agreed change of habitual residence had been vitiated by the mother’s alleged fraud. Case note, 29/04/2021, free -
A (A Child) (Abduction: Jurisdiction: 1996 Hague Convention) [2021] EWHC 581 (Fam)
The Swiss father applied under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention for jurisdiction to be transferred to Switzerland, where the two-year-old daughter currently lived with him. The application was opposed by the British mother and the guardian. It was agreed that the daughter had been abducted from England in June 2020, when the paternal grandparents had paid for a private jet to take the father and daughter to Switzerland. The mother had not seen the daughter in person since August 2020. Arbuthnot J found that the court could not transfer these proceedings under Brussels IIa, and Article 8 of the Hague Convention did not apply in a case of wrongful removal unless the conditions in Article 7(1)(a) or (b) had been met. In her judgment, the courts here were better placed to determine the daughter's best interests. Delay was also a significant factor: this was a very young child, and her living arrangements should be determined much sooner than Swiss proceedings would allow. If there was a discretion to transfer under Article 8, Arbuthnot J would not have exercised it. There was no alternative power to transfer under the Family Law Act, and if there were, she would have exercised her discretion to not transfer the proceedings. The question of contact would be decided separately. Judgment, 29/04/2021, free -
New Pilot Practice Direction 36W brings in new provision for communicating Forced Marriage and Female Genital Mutilation Protection Orders
Resolution Family Law News, 29/04/2021, free -
The Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) (Amendment) Rules 2021
These Rules amend the Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014 (S.I. 2014/840) (“the 2014 Rules”). News, 29/04/2021, free