The online news, case and webinar service for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Watch Baroness Hale's Keynote Speech at the At A Glance Conference
Jurisdiction in Practice Post Brexit & Post Lugano with Mark Ablett, Pump Court Chambers
'Contempt of Court - All Change'
'Ask the Arbitrators' | Part 2 - Financial IFLA Scheme
New to read
-
Watch Baroness Hale's Keynote Speech at the At A Glance Conference
You can now watch Baroness Hale deliver her Keynote Speech, recorded at this year's At A Glance Conference. Webcast, 26/11/2021, free -
Don’t tick the box: T v T (variation of a pension sharing order and underfunded schemes) [2021] EWFC B67
In this case HHJ Hess (‘the judge’) considered an application for the variation of a pension sharing order. Case note, 18/11/2021, free -
MORE TRANSPARENCY IN THE FINANCIAL REMEDIES COURT
Sir James Munby Article, 16/11/2021, free -
BT V CU [2021] EWFC 87
H's Barder application to set aside parts of financial order due to the impact of Covid is dismissed. Case note, 12/11/2021, free -
The risks of ‘nihilistic litigation’: Crowther v Crowther and Ors (Financial Remedies) (Rev 1) [2021] EWFC 88
In this case Peel J (‘the judge’) dealt with the final hearing in an application by Caroline Crowther (‘W’) for financial remedies following her divorce from Paul Crowther (‘H’). Case note, 05/11/2021, free -
Jurisdiction in Practice Post Brexit & Post Lugano with Mark Ablett, Pump Court Chambers
Recording of webinar first broadcast on 27th October 2021. Webcast, 02/11/2021, free -
Twenty-Eight Absolutely Identical Petitions: The Marriage of Gia Celine-Shelby and Alfie David Yorston and Twenty-Seven Other Related Cases [2021] EWFC 80
Twenty-eight divorce petitions were listed before Moor J. They had been referred from District Judge Hardy, the judge who is in charge of the divorce unit at Bury St. Edmunds. Case note, 29/10/2021, free -
BS (a Child) (Child abduction) [2021] EWHC 2643 (Fam)
The father applied under the Child Abduction Custody Act 1985 for the summary return of the daughter to Italy pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother had removed her to England in February 2021. The mother accepted that the child's views on return were ambivalent. Her defence thus focused on the issues of consent/acquiescence under Article 13(a) and grave risk/intolerability under Article 13(b). She claimed that moving to England had been the father's suggestion, to lessen the child's exposure to racist abuse. The father said that he had not agreed to a relocation in the months and days leading up to the trip to England in July 2020, and that even if he had it did not subsist many months later. Mr Teertha Gupta QC queried why the mother had left in a clandestine fashion, if the father had consented to the move. For that and several other reasons he came to the firm conclusion that the consent defence had simply not been made out. Similarly, the defence under Article 13(b) had not been made out. He found it highly unlikely that the mother would be separated from the daughter if she chose to go with her. Thus he ordered the summary return of the child to Italy. Judgment, 25/10/2021, free