The online news, case and webinar service for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Dictionary of Private Children Law book launch webinar
Introducing Advicenow’s Survival guide to pensions on divorce (‘PAG guide 2’)
Farming & White v White 20 years on.
Understanding and Protecting Pensions Sharing Orders
New to read
-
The ‘folly’ of litigating ‘about where to litigate’: C (A Child) [2021] EWFC 32
Case note, 22/04/2021, free -
Cafcass private law data for March 2021
Private law cases rose by 38% based on the same period last year. News, 22/04/2021, free -
Mrs Justice Lieven appointed as Family Division Liaison Judge
The President of the Family Division, following consultation with the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of a Family Division Liaison Judge. News, 19/04/2021, free -
AA & BB [2021] EWHC 890 (Fam)
A hearing that had been listed for consideration of issues of contact between the father and the children, "subject to a review of the English court's position in the event that the Russian court accepts jurisdiction". There had since been a hearing of several days' duration before a court in Russia, which had clearly decided that it had jurisdiction to make substantive orders in relation to the children, that the children were habitually resident in Russia (notwithstanding that they were attending schools during term time in England), and that the children should reside with their mother at a place of their mother's choosing. In Holman J's view, he was obliged to "abstain" from exercising further jurisdiction over any matters which clearly fell within the territory of the Russian proceedings and judgment, though he noted that the father was appealing the previous order of the Family Court. With those appeals in mind, he declined to make an order permitting the mother's solicitors to release the passports: the mother had frankly said that if she were able to return with the children to Russia she would keep them there and not permit them to travel again to England until she was quite confident that she would not be "ensnared" by further legal proceedings. Judgment, 19/04/2021, free -
AA v AB (Costs) [2021] EWFC B16
The application of the former wife for a financial remedy order arising from her marriage to her former husband. Both were UK nationals, who had met in 2005, married in 2011 and separated in 2019. They had lived in the United Arab Emirates for the duration of the marriage, and their child had been born there in 2015. The overall position was a joint deficit approaching £60,000; the only significant asset was a flat in Wales vested in the husband’s name. As well as the relevant factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Mr Recorder Salter bore in mind that the court's overall objective was to achieve a fair outcome. There was no place for discrimination between the husband and the wife and their respective roles. However, there were two primary factors which justified a departure from equality in this case: that it was a needs case, and the prior agreement reached between the parties. Over and above the amounts contained in the prior agreement – including an annual lump sum he reduced to £5,000 in view of the wife's move to England, where living costs were lower – he ordered that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of £12,500 within 56 days: £8,750 for six months’ rent, £2,250 for furniture, £1,500 towards the transportation of their pets to England. He would also have to pay £7,000 towards a car and driving lessons, and periodical payments in relation to the child of £1,000 per month. Mr Recorder Salter described the level of costs in the proceedings as "ruinous to the parties" and "utterly disproportionate to the assets involved". Issues had been pursued which did not merit any significant expenditure of costs, and warnings had gone ignored. He concluded that the wife should make a contribution of £10,000 towards the husband’s costs. Judgment, 19/04/2021, free -
The Irrelevance of Wisdom: NB v MI [2021] EWHC 224 (Fam)
Mostyn J dealt with an application for a declaration of non-recognition of a Muslim marriage and a petition for nullity on the basis that the applicant did not have the capacity to marry. Case note, 15/04/2021, free -
The Civil Partnership (Registration and Records) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
These Regulations amend the Civil Partnership (Registration Provisions) Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”), the Gender Recognition Register (Marriage and Civil Partnership) Regulations 2015 (“the 2015 Regulations”) and the Civil Partnerships Records Regulations 2016 (“the 2016 Regulations”). News, 15/04/2021, free -
The Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021
These Regulations amend the Marriage Act 1949 (“the 1949 Act”) to provide for a new marriage registration system. News, 15/04/2021, free
