Family Law Hub

New to Family Law Hub

• Hearings by video to be tested in domestic abuse cases Domestic abuse victims may seek injunctions more easily and with less stress as part of a test into the use of fully-video court hearings. News, 16/05/2019, free
• Speech by President of the Family Division: Nicholas Wall Memorial Lecture 2019 “THE CHILDREN ACT 1989: 30 YEARS ON” News, 16/05/2019, free
• Case summary: Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam) A case summary of Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam), by a Pupil at 1 Hare Court. Case note, 10/05/2019, registration required
• L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) An order had been made transferring the boy's home to that of his father in Northern Ireland, because maintaining the placement with his mother and grandmother would cause him emotional harm. The situation did not rise to the level of parental alienation, but the child was unable to speak positively of his father in the maternal home. The mother appealed, arguing that there had been procedural irregularity, the decision to transfer residence was premature, and the conclusions on the balance of harm were wrong or insufficiently evidenced. Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, found that none of the challenges made on her behalf had been sustained. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
• Vilinova v Vilinov & Anor [2019] EWHC 1107 (Fam) The wife made a claim for financial relief after a divorce in Russia. A claim for £2m was made against her by a company of which the husband had been the sole director. She claimed that this was a sham. The husband did not engage at all with the court during the proceedings, though the company did, and he gave no disclosure of his means. Holman J was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order for financial relief, and that an award of £5m to the wife, leaving at least £17m to the husband, would not do him any injustice. It was less than the wife would have been awarded had all the proceedings taken place in England and Wales. The wife was also entitled to an order for costs against the company and the husband. The judge recognised, however, that enforcement of his orders would be difficult. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
• Capital Gains Tax in Divorce: A Refresher Recording of webinar first broadcast on 30th April 2019. Webcast, 09/05/2019, members only
• Draft guidance on reporting in the Family Courts The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has released draft guidance for consultation on reporting in the Family Courts. News, 09/05/2019, free
• Latest View from the President’s Chambers sets out need for change in Public and Private Children’s Law Latest update gives details on the Public and Private Law Working Groups, a financial remedy court update, divorce service centres and the HMCTS Reform Programme. News, 09/05/2019, free
• MB v TB (Art 13 Alleged Risk of Oppressive Litigation) [2019] EWHC 1019 (Fam) The father sought an order for the summary return of the daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that this would subject the daughter to a grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. MacDonald J disagreed. Asked to consider previous findings involving the same father, he said that the court should be cautious about importing judicial observations made in the context of a different relationship and factual framework. He considered that the mother's actions constituted a premeditated and blatant act of child abduction, intended to circumvent the due process of the Israeli courts, and ordered the daughter's summary return in time for the new school term. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
• JP v TP [2019] EWHC 1077 (Fam) The mother made an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the son to New Zealand. The father had expressed concerns about the child's well-being in his mother's care. Darren Howe QC had to proceed on the basis that there was a risk of harm, but he noted that there had been improvements in the mother's parenting, and accepted her undertaking to prevent contact between her partner and the child. The father had not proved a grave risk of harm or an otherwise intolerable situation for the son and the defence therefore failed. An order would be made for the return of the son to New Zealand. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free

Don't miss