Know-how, update and training for the private family lawyer. Click here to find out more..
New to watch
Financial Remedy Courts Update
Jurisdiction in Financial Remedies: The Brexit Effect
Egocentrism, narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder in family law settings
Finance Cases Review: Alexis Campbell QC
New to read
-
Case summary: Ali v Barbosa [2019] EWHC 2776 (Fam)
The case concerned an application by the husband to set aside: a) an order for deemed service of a divorce petition; b) all orders which stemmed from that petition (certificate of entitlement, decree nisi, decree absolute). The question for the court was: did the alleged procedural errors in service render the orders void or voidable? The court concluded that: a) under the Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”) the alleged errors in service would not necessarily render these orders void; b) when considering the prejudice to both parties, this was not a case where the orders were void; d) if the orders were voidable the court would not exercise its discretion and set aside the orders. The husband’s application was dismissed. Article, 13/12/2019, free -
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Disclosure of Asylum Records) [2019] EWHC 3147 (Fam)
The father sought disclosure and inspection of documentation from the successful asylum claim of the mother, for use in family proceedings. The mother's asylum application had been based on claims regarding physical and sexual abuse by the father. The father had applied for summary return under the 1980 Hague Convention, and requested disclosure before a fact-finding hearing. MacDonald J accepted that there was a compelling public interest in ensuring that the confidentiality of the asylum process was protected, but that did not prevent a court ordering disclosure and inspection of such documents in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 in an appropriate case. The mother was directed to produce for the court the documentation from the asylum process which she contended should not be disclosed to the father, and the court would determine whether they should be. Article, 11/12/2019, free -
Derhalli v Derhalli [2019] EWHC 3286 (Ch)
The former wife's defence to claims for possession of the matrimonial home, and for weekly use and occupation payments of £5000, had referred to the terms of the financial remedy consent order, which in her view permitted her to occupy the property until it was sold. The county court judge had rejected her interpretation of the order. Fancourt J allowed her appeal, deciding that the correspondence on which the former husband had relied in the county court was not admissible as evidence of the meaning of the consent order. The county court judge erred in interpreting the order and the reasons he gave for reaching the conclusion that the appellant was a gratuitous licensee were mistaken. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free -
Neil v Neil [2019] EWHC 3330 (Fam)
The former husband applied to set aside part of a consent order relating to maintenance payments. The former wife cross-appealed for enforcement of maintenance arrears. The husband claimed that the consent order had been fraudulently changed without his knowledge, and that his wife had sent emails in his name to the firm involved in drafting the consent order. In emails to her the husband had expressed his belief that the maintenance changes were a mere "paperwork exercise" to enable her to get a new mortgage. Moor J found that the expert handwriting evidence as to the signature on the consent order was of no assistance, but he was satisfied that the wife had perpetrated a fraud on the husband, and that she had sent fraudulent emails on his behalf. The relevant paragraph of the order was set aside, and replaced with a clean break order. The wife owed the husband £248,930 from the sale of the matrimonial home, to be paid within 28 days. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free -
Financial Remedy Courts Update
Recording of talk given by HHJ Edward Hess at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only -
Jurisdiction in Financial Remedies: The Brexit Effect
Recording of speech from the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only -
A Modern Day Jarndyce; or, Keeping it Simple: Read v Panzone & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1662
The Court of Appeal recently gave judgment in Read v Panzone & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1662, an appeal concerning s37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The Court gave significant warnings to first instance judges about the dangers of making findings of fact on alternate bases: although judges may be tempted to take this ‘belt and braces’ approach, it may simply muddy the waters and confuse the issues for the parties. Article, 06/12/2019, free -
I-L (Children) (1996 Hague Child Protection Convention: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2019] EWCA Civ 1956
The father appealed against an order for the two children to be returned to Russia. Moylan LJ, Peter Jackson LJ and Arnold LJ decided that both the father's appeal regarding habitual residence and the mother's cross-appeal regarding repudiatory retention would be dismissed, but that the judge's order made under the inherent jurisdiction would be set aside. When the 1996 Hague Convention applied, recourse could only be had to the inherent jurisdiction if permitted by the code established by the Convention. Here, there was no gap in the scheme of the Convention to justify exercising the court's inherent powers. The right course was for the mother's application for enforcement of the Russian court's order to be determined as soon as possible. Judgment, 03/12/2019, free
