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

  • Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 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
  • H v W [2019] EWHC 1897 (Fam) An arbitration had taken place to resolve pension division, spousal maintenance, and the division of assets pertaining to shares and a redundancy. The husband felt that there had been a miscalculation of the wife's income, affecting the amount of spousal maintenance due. Ms Clare Ambrose, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the application. The arbitrator's conduct fell far short of making this a case which required court intervention. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • O'Dwyer v O'Dwyer [2019] EWHC 1838 (Fam) After some delay, the husband sought a stay of a periodical payments order, arguing that the judge had fallen into error in treating his future earning capacity as a matrimonial asset which could be shared. In circumstances where there was no final version of the judgment, nor a sealed order, Francis J held that it was unfair to hold the relevant time limits against the husband. He agreed that the judge had been plainly wrong, and reduced the annual payments from £150,000 to £68,000. This hearing had been listed for only a day, causing further delay, and he stressed that there is a general duty on counsel and solicitors to inform the court if a time estimate is plainly incorrect. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • X v Y (Permission to Appeal) [2019] EWHC 1713 (Fam) The father applied for permission to appeal orders relating to financial remedies, care of the two children and non-molestation, claiming in particular that the assessment of income had been improper, and that there had been bias and error on the part of the judge. Theis J refused permission to appeal, except with regard to a narrow but important issue regarding the child arrangements order. Judgment, 19/07/2019, free
  • New Webinar: Eliminate the ‘He Said/She Said’ – Improve communication and keep parents accountable in moderate and high conflict cases To be broadcast 1pm, Wednesday 9th October 2019. News, 18/07/2019, free
  • Clarke v Allen & Anor [2019] EWHC 1193 (Ch) The widow brought claims against the two daughters of her deceased husband. Deputy Master Linwood found that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for her, and awarded the widow her proposed nursing home charges plus an amount for pension loss, totalling £731,309. One daughter’s conduct included financial abuse, oppression via court proceedings, and attempting to mislead various parties including the court. She had flouted court orders, dissipated savings and investments, and failed to account for her activities as executor, the holder of the power of attorney and the recipient of rent. He drew adverse inferences against her and found that she should forfeit £80,000 of her share of the residue to the widow. The other daughter would forfeit £1000. Judgment, 08/07/2019, free
  • AEY (Permission to Appeal Civil Restraint Order) [2018] EWHC 3253 (Fam) The father of the two girls, one of whom was in voluntary care, the other living with the mother, had made serious and unfounded allegations against the mother and HHJ Tolson QC. He was now making multiple applications for permission to appeal. Knowles J decided that all the applications were without merit, and none should be granted. He made an extended civil restraint order preventing the father from making any further applications. Judgment, 08/07/2019, free
  • S v D (Hague Convention: Domestic Abuse: Undertakings: Return to Third State) [2019] EWHC 56 (Fam) In a tweet: Successful application by a father (“F”) for return of the child to a state other than the one in which the family had been habitually resident when the wrongful removal occurred. Case note, 08/07/2019, free
  • A (Foreign Adoption Recognition) [2018] EWHC 3468 (Fam) In brief: A successful application for recognition of an adoption order made in the Philippines in 2006 in which the judge found that the four pre-requisites to recognition of adoption in common law, as set out in Re N (Recognition of a Foreign Adoption) [2016] EWHC 3085, had been met. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was joined as an interested party because the outcome of the decision impacted the family’s prospects of applying to live in the UK. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
  • AH (Mother) and AMH (Father) [2018] EWCH 2981 (Fam) In brief: The mother’s (“M”) application for a summary return of the parties’ son to the Republic of Sudan (a non-Hague Convention country) was allowed by the judge. The judgment is helpful in distilling the legal principles applicable in the context of a non-Convention application, as well as summarising neatly the key considerations to be assessed and weighed in determining a child’s habitual residence. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only

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