Family Law Hub

New to Family Law Hub

• President issues new guidance on forms of order in children cases Guidance is issued by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. News, 19/06/2019, free
• Re K (A Child) [2019] EWHC 1504 (Fam) The father had deprived the mother and son of their passports, stranding the child in India without either parent. Having previously declined to make an order for the child's summary return to England, Williams J found that the boy's welfare was now best promoted by being reunited with his mother. He made an interim order for the boy's return, subject to judges in India removing the order that prohibited his removal from that jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/06/2019, free
• NG v GA [2019] EWHC 1412 (Fam) The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
• FW v FH [2019] EWHC 1338 (Fam) A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
• Hayes v Hayes [2019] EWHC 1341 (Ch) A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
• The 2007 Child Support Convention enters into force for Kazakhstan the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (“Child Support Convention”) enters into force for Kazakhstan, following the deposit of its instrument of accession on 6 June 2017. News, 14/06/2019, free
• End to divorce ‘blame game’ moves closer Biggest shake up of divorce laws in 50 years aimed at reducing conflict and supporting children and families. News, 14/06/2019, free
• Case summary: Habberfield v Habberfield: Proprietary Estoppel Kate Strange, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Habberfield v Habberfield. Case note, 07/06/2019, members only
• O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 Ms O sought a declaration, under s 55(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, that she had married Mr B-M in Ghana. Mr B-M denied that there had been a marriage ceremony, or at least not one to which he had consented. Much of the ceremony had been conducted in languages Mr B-M did not speak, and it had been described as an engagement ceremony. Mr Recorder Allen QC held that what happened was sufficient to be considered a customary marriage ceremony, but that Ms O did not believe she was getting married and Mr B-M and his family had not consented to a marriage. Therefore, their marriage could not be recognised under English law and Ms O's application failed. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free
• CA v KA [2019] EWHC 1347 (Fam) The father applied for the summary return to Germany of his two-year-old daughter, after the mother did not bring her back from a holiday. However, the father had not applied in the German courts for custody or contact, nor had the mother applied for custody, and Mostyn J criticised them for instead "devoting all their forensic energy to fighting this procedural battle". He found that the father had acquiesced in Article 13.1(a) terms to the daughter's continued living in the UK, and it would be precipitate to order her summary return before the matter had been brought before a German court. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free

Don't miss