The online information & webinar resource for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Learn how to better manage your family forms and orders while improving consistency and efficiency
Pensions on Divorce - Ringfencing the non-matrimonial element
Remote Hearings & the Paperless Court
Crypto-assets in Divorce Proceedings
New to read
-
Re A (A Child) [2020] EWHC 2784 (Fam)
The eleven-year-old son was born in Italy and was an Italian national, as was the mother. The father had brought the son to England; the mother sought his summary return. The father asked the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to so order on the basis of the exceptions under Article 13(a) (asserting that the mother had not been exercising her rights of custody at the relevant time) and Article 13(2) (asserting that the son objected to returning to Italy and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views). Mr Richard Harrison QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, thought it was clear that the mother had actually been exercising her rights of custody. He also found that while the son had attained the requisite age and degree of maturity and genuinely objected to returning, those objections were the product of significant influence on the part of the father, who had previously recruited the child as a co-conspirator in the wrongful removal. The child's views would not be decisive of the outcome. Welfare considerations led him instead to order the child's return to Italy, albeit not until the half-term holidays. Judgment, 26/10/2020, free -
M v G (Hague Convention: Article 13(b) defence) [2020] EWHC 1450 (Fam)
The four-year-old son had come from Australia with the mother to visit her family in the United Kingdom, with the father's consent. They did not return, and so the father made a Hague Convention application. The parties agreed that the son had been habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time. The mother relied on the defence under Article 13(b). While Theis J did not doubt that if the mother returned with the son she was likely to suffer in the way described by the doctor consulted, given the chronic nature of her psychological difficulties, that did not, in her judgment, in the circumstances of this case, meet the threshold in Article 13(b). Theis J was satisfied that the protective measures agreed by the parties would be able to mitigate any harm. She ordered that the child be returned to Australia, on a date to be fixed. Judgment, 26/10/2020, free -
Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369
The husband's appeal to the High Court to set the arbitral award aside had failed, and an order had been made in the terms of the arbitral award. This appeal was limited to the question of the test to be applied where one party declined to consent to or challenged the making of an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in the terms of an IFLA Scheme arbitral award. Was (i) the test limited to those matters in the Arbitration Act 1996, save where there had been a supervening event or mistake; or (ii) should the appeals test under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 be applied? King LJ found that the judge in this case had applied the wrong test, and applying the appeals test she was satisfied that the husband had a real prospect of succeeding in an appeal against the award made. When presented with a refusal on the part of one party to agree to the conversion of an arbitral award into a consent order, the logical approach would be for the court to "triage" the case, with the reluctant party having to "show cause" why such order should not be made. Moylan LJ and Popplewell LJ agreed. The matter would now be remitted to a circuit judge, and a case management hearing would take place to determine the form and extent of the hearing required to determine these proceedings. Judgment, 23/10/2020, free -
An ‘extremely rare’ example of the court directing that counsel should not continue to act for a party: Ahmed v Iqbal [2020] EWHC 2666 (Fam)
MacDonald J heard an appeal against an order which prohibited the barrister who was acting for the father in Children Act proceedings from accepting further instructions in those proceedings. Case note, 23/10/2020, free -
Learn how to better manage your family forms and orders while improving consistency and efficiency
Manage your family court forms and orders effectively and efficiently, whether you are at home, in the office or out and about. Quantum, our well known and well used family forms package, has been full rebuilt for the cloud - with improved security and time saving features. Learn how the program can be used to enhance your practice and revolutionise the way you complete your family forms and orders. Webcast, 21/10/2020, free -
Rothschild v De Souza [2020] EWCA Civ 1215
The husband appealed a final financial remedy order made by Cohen J. The sole ground of appeal was that the judge failed to assess or take into account the husband’s needs, and only considered the wife’s needs. Case note, 20/10/2020, free -
Exaggerated expenses: ZN v GN [2020] EWHC 1316 (Fam)
Cohen J considered an application by a husband for financial remedies from his wife, who was a beneficiary of several trusts. Case note, 20/10/2020, free -
Pensions on Divorce - Ringfencing the non-matrimonial element
Recording of webinar first broadcast on 19th October 2020. Webcast, 20/10/2020, free
