Family Law Hub

Human Rights Act 1998

Statute, published: 31/12/1998

Items referring to this

  • Judgment in a claim for damages where the claimant sought to establish a breach of Article 8 rights arising from alleged negligent advice from CAFCASS during contact and residence dispute. Judgment, 13/06/2014, free
  • Appeal of judicial review proceedings concerning funding of an expert report for a child joined as a party to contact and residence applications and where the parents represented themselves. The LSC's decision not to fund the report was declared unlawful. Judgment, 22/05/2014, free
  • Appeal against decision to disclose third party allegations of sexual abuse in contact proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 12/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • A contact case in which no order for direct contact was made between the child and F, despite F being "an unimpeachable father who has been consistently prevented from enjoying contact with his daughter by an implacably hostile mother". The previous systemic failure ended in a hearing which itself was highly unsatisfactory and where the judge had failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis, such that it made it almost inevitable that the court ordered a full rehearing. Judgment, 09/09/2013, free
  • Judgment, 17/09/2012, free
  • Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
  • The main issue in this case was whether the 'marriage' – which lasted for 18 years and which produced 4 children and where all accepted them as husband and wife - in fact was to be treated in English law as not a marriage at all, not even one which could be declared void for failing to comply with the formalities of marriage. The judge found that it was a void marriage and the wife was thus entitled to a decree of nullity. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • An application by News Group Newspapers Ltd to lift the prohibition on reporting the evidence given at a private hearing which would otherwise engage section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The application was dismissed but the judge ruled that the parents (not the child) could be named. Judgment, 04/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 08/02/2013, free
  • In a tweet: Damages and injunctions in deceit, harassment and privacy breach claims Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • Application by father for summary return of child to France and involving issues of settlement. Application granted as none of the defences under the 1980 Hague Convention were satisfied. Judgment, 17/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 18/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
  • Circumstances when an anonymity order should be granted in child support decisions Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
  • Mother's application to have Hague proceedings withdrawn. The proceedings had reached a curious position in that the mother, who was seeking the return of the child to the US, sought to abandon her application for an order for return and the father, who was opposing the return, sought, nominally, to resist the withdrawal of an application designed to achieve that end, at least until further substantive welfare orders were made. Judgment, 21/03/2016, free
  • In brief: This case began as a private law dispute where the mother (“M”) was very concerned that the father (“F”) would abduct the child. Subsequently (and it is not clear what led to this), the local authority (“LA”) obtained an interim care order and removed the child. The judgment concerns a number of applications (brought by M) for declarations pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 that ss 2, 8, 38, 50, and 97 CA 1989 and the whole of the Child Abduction Act 1984 were incompatible with the ECHR. The fundamental point M made was that the statute was not strong or effective enough. Surprisingly, the High Court did not take the opportunity offered to them of overturning huge chunks of statute. Judgment, 26/04/2018, free
  • Husband was asking for an adjournment of this "extremely simple [financial remedy] case" which was refused. Mr Justice Mostyn explains his reasoning for anonymisation of financial remedy cases and ordered that the media should not identify the parties. Judgment, 16/09/2015, free
  • Despite the concerns raised (including reservations by Cafcass about the relationship of the applicants and whether it was, in fact, an enduring family relationship as required by s 54(2)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and concerns by the court about the status and legality of the agreement entered into in Thailand) the court made parental orders in respect of both children. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Nigel Shepherd of Mills & Reeve reviews two recent judgments in which arbitration has been considered in the family law context. Article, 11/02/2013, free
  • An order was made that the children be returned to Israel but it would not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. Judgment, 15/09/2017, free
  • As the title implies, an intractable contact dispute that has been ongoing for nearly 14 years. The F was applying to have a contact order (which only allowed him direct contact with his daughter 3 times a year) to be varied. The order was varied, but the judge also extended an order under s91(14) such that F could not apply, without the permission of the court, for any new orders under s8, or apply to have the current order varied, until his daughter's 16th birthday. Judgment, 01/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 22/06/2012, free
  • High Court prevents W from making public bare terms of her open financial offer to H Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 21/09/2012, free
  • Transgender claimant (male to female) was challenging a refusal by the Registrar General to show the claimant as 'parent' or 'parent/father' rather than 'father' on her 2 children's birth certificates. The application was refused: in requiring a man who changes gender to female to be listed as 'father' on the full birth certificate of a child in respect of whom they are the biological father, the birth registration scheme was not in breach of article 8 or 14 of the ECHR. Judgment, 24/04/2015, free
  • Judgment in contact case where the father was alleging alienation by the mother. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 09/04/2014, free
  • Case note, 21/01/2010, members only
  • This was a case in which the judge did not feel it was appropriate for him to cross-examine the child (who had made allegations against her step father) in a situation where the father was not represented or eligible for legal aid. The judge said instead that the court should arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to cross-examine the child on behalf of the father and that the cost of this should be met by HMCTS. The Lord Chancellor appealed and the appeal was allowed, the court saying that in the present case, which was fairly straightforward, the judge should probably have decided to conduct the questioning himself. The nature of this case was such that there were options available to the judge which would have ensured a fair hearing and vindicated the article 6 and 8 rights of the father and the other children involved. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Judgment, 05/11/2012, free
  • An appeal from an order dismissing the wife's endeavour to rely on documents and statements made by the husband during the course of complex proceedings to enforce a financial remedy order in the wife's favour. Judgment, 23/05/2013, free
  • Application in which applicant sought an order under section 37(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in order to set aside a notice to quit that was signed by his estranged wife. Application dismissed. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • An anonymity order dated 30 June 2011 had been imposed following financial provision proceedings. The wife applied for the anonymity order to be extended or, alternatively, for the imposition of a fresh anonymity order to cover recent financial provision proceedings. The court held that in the particular circumstances of this case, such balancing exercise, if any, as the court was required to conduct, clearly came down in favour of the press and other media. A decision which refused to impose reporting or anonymity restrictions was a proportionate response to such entitlement as the wife may have to privacy under article 8. The application was therefore refused. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • The Official Solicitor and Acting Director of Legal Services of CAFCASS issued jointly on 18 March 2005 the following Practice Note which is to be read in conjunction with the President of the Family's Division's Practice Direction. Practice note, 18/03/2005, members only
  • A statutory charge was not and could not be applicable to the applicant's award of damages in a HRA claim. Judgment, 14/11/2016, free
  • Judgment from the President concerning the representation for LiP's and possible infringement of their article 6 and 8 rights if such representation is not publicly funded. The President said that 'there may be circumstances in which the court can properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by HMCTS. I emphasise that (the provision of interpreters and translators apart) this is an order of last resort. No order of this sort should be made except by or having first consulted a High Court Judge or a Designated Family Judge.' Judgment, 06/08/2014, free
  • Appeal by the charity Rights of Women against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash Regulation 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 which the appellant claimed introduces more restrictive criteria for eligibility for legal aid for victims of domestic violence than those found in LASPO 2012, in particular the requirement that the supporting evidence must be less than 24 months old. The appeal was allowed and Regulation 13 as regards the 24 month requirement was declared invalid. Judgment, 18/02/2016, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
  • The court held that a potential Inheritance Act claim by a surviving husband against his deceased wife's estate abates on the death of the husband. Thus the daughter of the deceased husband could not bring a claim under the Act after he had also died. However, the court allowed an amendment to the claim, the claimant relying on section 2(1)(f) of the 1975 Act which says that the Court has the power to vary "any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement (including such a settlement made by will) made on the parties to a marriage to which the deceased was one of the parties, the variation being for the benefit of the surviving party to that marriage, or any child of that marriage, or any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Here the claimant would have to show that she was "treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
  • Father's application for return of his child to Malta under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. Mostyn J dismisses the application and also sets out a useful review of the principles involved. Judgment, 27/11/2014, free
  • These proceedings raise the issue of whether the Court can direct scientific testing of the DNA of a person who has died for the purpose of providing evidence of paternity. Judgment, 20/04/2016, free
  • Judgment, 23/06/2009, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • The claimant was seeking a Declaration that it was lawful for the sperm of her husband who died in 2012 to be stored beyond 18 April 2015 and for a period of up to 55 years until 18 April 2060 so that it can be used by her for the purposes of conceiving a child or children. The Declaration was granted. Judgment, 17/03/2014, free
  • This appeal concerned the question of the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions can, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which are remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. Munby P had decided that the court had a discretion to order the disclosure of DNA profiles obtained under Part II of PACE in order to assist the court in resolving a paternity issue which had arisen in those proceedings. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 06/02/2015, free
  • At the conclusion of care proceedings, which found that the child had suffered non-accidental injuries, the father admitted that he had inflicted the injuries. The issue in this case was whether or not the court should disclose two previous judgments relating to the case, and therefore potentially identifying the father, to the police. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • Bodey J considers whether to preserve anonymity of a family in financial remedy proceedings following application from the press. He decides that he should. Judgment, 26/01/2017, free
  • Application for a reporting restriction order on the previous financial remedy proceedings. A reporting restriction order was made preventing the publication of any information relating to the proceedings save for the judgment. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Judgment, 03/02/2012, free
  • When section 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provides that in certain circumstances the court may make a parental order on the application of "two people", is it open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person? Can section 54(1) be 'read down' in accordance with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done? These were the questions raised for decision here and in Munby P's judgment the answer to each question was clear: No Judgment, 08/09/2015, free
  • Father of a child born to a surrogate mother was seeking a declaration of incompatibility in that Sections 54(1) and (2) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are incompatible under Article 14 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 8 insofar as they prevent the father from obtaining a parental order on the sole ground of his status as a single person as opposed to being part of a couple. Judgment, 20/05/2016, free
  • A case involving a mother on trial for fraud and whether or not a Reporting Restriction Order ought to be made to preserve the identity of her children. Judgment, 29/05/2013, free
  • Consideration of a variation of a Reporting Restriction Order where the mother was facing criminal charges of fraud. Judgment, 29/05/2013, free

Published: 31/12/1998


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item