Family Law Hub

Family Procedure Rules 2010

Rule, published: 31/12/2010

Items referring to this

  • 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
  • Decision of the President making it clear that consent orders following an arbitral award under the IFLA scheme should be approved by the court. The President said 'Where the parties have bound themselves, as by signing a Form ARB1, to accept an arbitral award of the kind provided for by the IFLA Scheme, this generates, as it seems to me, a single magnetic factor of determinative importance.' The President concluded the judgment with a call to the FPR Committee to look at the Rules to support the necessary procedural adaptation in the light of alternative forms of dispute resolution. Judgment, 15/01/2014, free
  • The father (“F”) was a registered sex offender and had been convicted of harassing the mother (“M”). He alleged that a CAFCASS officer had shared information about the proceedings and brought proceedings for contempt of court. Whilst it was accepted that the information shared did amount to a disclosure relating to the proceedings, the CAFCASS officer was found to have acted in accordance with the FPR 2010. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 04/05/2017, free
  • In this surrogacy case, the commissioning parents were applying for a parental order in relation to two girls where the application had been made 17 months after the 6 month deadline had expired. The parental orders were made. Judgment, 22/07/2015, free
  • A case involving cross-applications for residence and which led to a fact finding hearing as to whether or not C's father had sexually abused her Judgment, 10/07/2012, free
  • Appeal by wife against order allowing father supervised contact where she argued that the judge had not sufficiently considered his own findings that the father had been guilty of, among other things, abusive sexual conduct towards her. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Appeals against (1) a collection order made in relation to the child at a hearing without notice to the father and (2) an order requiring the return of the child to Sweden the following day "unless … a court in Sweden makes an order that the child can remain in the ... father's care until the conclusion of the case". The first appeal was dismissed but the second appeal was allowed, the court saying that although the judge was rightly concerned to act quickly in the interests of the child, there was no reason in the present case to abandon the Hague Convention proceedings in favour of Article 20 of BIIA. Judgment, 23/06/2016, free
  • Application for a child arrangements order by the ex-partner of the child's non-biological mother. Application refused. Judgment, 22/06/2015, free
  • Fact finding hearing to consider Mother's allegations against Father in order to inform future welfare decisions about their son. At the end of the judgment Mr Justice Hayden expresses his concern that a Judge in the Family Court can still not prevent a victim being cross examined by an alleged perpetrator. Judgment, 23/05/2017, free
  • After several breaches of court orders and a failure by the father, and then the mother, to attend court, the judge ruled that the wishes of the 2 children, who had been taken to Iraq by the father, should be ascertained in advance of a further hearing. Judgment, 17/05/2017, free
  • A final hearing in respect of an application for a parental order under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) concerning two children born pursuant to a surrogacy arrangement between the applicants and the respondent, the gestational surrogate. Parental orders made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Husband's application for financial provision after being divorced for 24 years failed. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Ex-wife's argument that the ex-husband's claim for financial provision 24 years after their divorce should be struck out as an abuse of process was rejected. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • In brief: Mr Justice MacDonald told off the barristers involved in this case (which concerns how much contact a 13 year old should have with her father (“F”) for the way they constantly interrupted one another. The interruptions had meant that important points were not raised or followed through which did not help the trial judge in making a sound decision. The expert psychologist was also criticised for producing a report at the last minute that was of poor quality and of no real help. Judgment, 22/03/2018, free
  • Application by husband to set aside grant of leave for the wife to apply for financial remedies in the English courts while there are ongoing protracted proceedings in Slovenia (where they married). Application failed. Judgment, 21/01/2015, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings in very high net worth case involving offshore trusts and international enforcement. The wife was awarded £453m, which represented 41.5% of the assets. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Judgment from Mostyn J in 'ancillary relief' proceedings involving consideration of whether a trust created for the matrimonial home was a nuptial settlement. Judgment, 20/09/2014, free
  • The issues in this financial provision case in which the husband was appealing were: 1) whether the judge had jurisdiction to make an order in respect of the children of the family; 2) whether the quantum of the periodical payments made in respect of the wife's income claims was fair in circumstances where the net effect of the judge's order left in the wife's hands the greater share of the husband's net disposable monthly income; and 3) whether the judge's departure from equality in terms of the capital division was fair in circumstances where the husband was left with a reduced share from which to meet his own future housing needs. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 14/12/2017, free
  • Surrogacy case where the same sex couple was seeking a PR order after the 6 month time limit following the birth of the children had passed and where the Indian surrogate mother could not be located (there was also uncertainty about her marital status). The PR order was made. Judgment, 16/02/2015, free
  • Costs hearing which ruled that the W should pay the H 50% of his costs relating to his successful application that a consent order should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the W. Judgment, 11/10/2016, free
  • Application made by firm of solicitors acting for the husband in financial remedy proceedings, for permission to appeal an order in which the DJ set aside a charge on the FMH to cover the husbands costs. The wife had secured 2 restrictions against the property and the DJ was satisfied that the husband had, at least as one of his purposes, executed the charge so as to defeat the wife's claim rather than use his offshore funds to pay his costs. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the firm did not have actual notice but did have constructive notice of the intention of the husband to defeat the wife's claim. Judgment, 20/04/2015, free
  • An unsuccessful attempt by a husband (“H”) to strike out his wife’s (“W”) applications under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and Family Law Act 1996. He attempted to rely on W’s breach of an earlier order - that her reply to H’s points of defence had been filed late – two days late. He also argued that W had failed to file answers to a questionnaire. Holman J found that it was disproportionate and unjust to strike out the applications on this basis – in particular, W had not failed to supply answers to questionnaires as the court had not fixed any timetable within which the questionnaire should be answered. H’s application was dismissed and the timetable for all other matters was accelerated. Judgment, 30/09/2014, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • The father's appeal against a Lump Sum Deduction Order (LSDO) made against him in respect of arrears which had accrued under a child support assessment in respect of his children was dismissed as it was out of time. Judgment, 08/06/2017, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2013, free
  • Judgment given reasons for directions made in long-running residence and contact dispute involving applications by French mother not habitually resident in England. Judgment, 29/07/2014, free
  • Application by wife for committal of husband for contempt of court after breach of two disclosure orders. Mostyn J granted the application, imposed a 9 month sentence and issued a European arrest warrant. Judgment, 10/11/2015, free
  • Application by wife for a reference to the police of her allegation of perjury against the husband in her attempt to enforce a FR order. The application was dismissed. Mr Justice Mostyn also confirmed that, contrary to a previous order he had made, a European arrest warrant cannot be ordered for contempt of court in civil proceedings, even if they result in a sentence of imprisonment. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Application by the wife for a Legal Services Order in the course of heavily contested financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 16/06/2014, free
  • Article, 20/03/2012, members only
  • Husband's appeal in financial remedy proceedings, challenging the financial remedy award on the basis of an unfair division of the assets. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Appeal against the making of a Hadkinson order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 28/03/2017, free
  • Judgment, 01/01/2013, free
  • Judgment concerning, among other things, the mother's application to be able to rename her children without reference to the father, who lives in Iran, and to restrict the father's parental responsibility. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Judgment, 11/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 15/07/2012, free
  • Application made by a respondent LiP against the wording of a sealed order containing the words of a draft order which the respondent had refused to sign because it did not correspond to the undertaking he had made in court. Mr Justice Mostyn said that there is no requirement for an undertaking which is given in the face of the court and recorded in the transcript to be separately recorded in a general form of undertaking, and he dismissed the application. Judgment, 12/10/2014, members only
  • Sharia divorce claim rejected Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
  • Husband's appeal against an order which made substantial variation to the capital provision of the original consent order and against committal orders following issue of a judgment summons because he was in breach of a child maintenance order in the amount of £253,000 and that at all material times he had had the means to pay that sum but had neglected or refused to do so. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/01/2017, free
  • Judgment, 18/12/2012, free
  • The wife sought declarations in relation to 2 properties which she argued were wholly or mainly beneficially owned by the husband, notwithstanding that (i) the legal title to Property 1 was held in the four names of the husband and his family, and there was a signed TR1 declaring that they hold it as tenants in common in equal shares, and (ii) the legal title to Property 2 was in the sole name of the husband's brother. The wife's applications were dismissed. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • Wife's application that judgments in these financial remedy proceedings, where the husband had been found to have defrauded her parents, should be published un-anonymised. The application was granted. Judgment, 16/03/2018, free
  • Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
  • Appeal by 'husband' (there had been a decree absolute) against refusal to admit expert evidence on earning capacity in the financial remedy proceedings. Appeal dismissed by Moor J as the evidence requested did not meet the necessary test of importance and that such evidence should be kept to a minimum in regular financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 21/02/2018, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Application for a parental order in relation to a child born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement entered into by the parties through a surrogacy agency based in California. Parental order made. Judgment, 02/08/2013, free
  • Appeal by father in private law proceedings, against order requiring he be subject to a psychological report and pay half the costs. Appeal allowed because, broadly, the court and judge on appeal had ignored the current Rules on experts that came into force in 2013. Judgment, 10/06/2015, free
  • In brief: A mother’s (“M”) unsuccessful appeal against a decision transferring the residence of the six-year old child to the father (“F”) as a result of M not supporting contact between F and C. Judgment, 28/03/2018, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2013, free
  • Application by the H for permission to appeal decisions which (i) refused H's application for permission to appeal out of time against an ancillary relief order dated 26 May 2006; and (ii) refused H's application to set aside that order on grounds of material non-disclosure. Application refused. Judgment, 08/08/2013, free
  • In brief: The High Court allowed a mother’s (“M”) appeal against a suspended committal order made following her failure to comply with a child arrangements order. The success was based on the fact that no application to commit M had been made; the only application made and served had been for an enforcement order. The order was incapable of being enforced by committal as it was not endorsed with an effective penal notice. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Long running financial remedy proceedings where the wife was seeking a settlement in England rather than Malaysia. This judgment involves an application to dismiss the wife's petition and consideration of MPS / legal funding prior to further hearings in the English courts. Judgment, 14/05/2014, free
  • Application for committal for breach of order requiring disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. Application granted and 6 months sentence handed down but stayed for a few days to allow for compliance. Judgment, 16/12/2014, free
  • High value financial remedy case where the costs so far amount to £2.7million and the court had to determine the extent, if any, of non-disclosure by both the husband and wife. Judgment, 17/05/2017, free
  • Child aged 15 was joined as a party to proceedings in which mother was seeking a summary return to the US as she claimed that he had been wrongfully retained in the UK by his father. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • The husband was committed to prison for six weeks for non payment of an order for periodical payments made in divorce proceedings between the parties. He was sent to prison because he currently had, in the view of the district judge, both an earning potential and could apply for benefits but chose not to do so. The next day the husband gave notice of appeal to the High Court. He was released on bail. The essential issue that arose on this appeal was whether the reason given by the district judge was a lawful and sufficient basis for committing a maintenance debtor to prison. A person cannot be committed to prison for non-payment of a maintenance order unless the court is satisfied that the payer has, or has had, the means to pay. The district judge said that she could not be sure that the husband had currently an income, or capital, or assets and went on to say that there was "both wilful refusal and culpable neglect”. However, the High Court ruled that this was not a sufficient, justifiable or lawful basis for imprisoning anybody and the committal order was discharged. Judgment, 27/11/2013, free
  • Judgment, 27/11/2012, free
  • Application by husband for permission to appeal financial remedy order. Application granted. Judgment, 19/05/2013, free
  • Judgment from the President concerning whether it was open for a wife to apply to set aside an order for reasons of non-disclosure or whether she was required to appeal as per FPR PD30A. He concludes that the relevant part of PD30A is ultra vires so the wife can proceed without court permission. Judgment, 17/04/2015, free
  • Father's appeal against a UK decision that allowed an appeal by the child's mother against the recognition and enforcement of an order made by the Romanian Court of Appeal in Bucharest. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/01/2016, free
  • Another case following Q v Q where the parents did not qualify for legal aid but lacked the financial resources to pay for legal representation in circumstances where the LA was looking to place the child for adoption. Judgment, 03/11/2014, free
  • A case which raises issues about judicial case management and, in particular, the court's approach to the cross-examination of an alleged victim by an alleged abuser. Judgment, 27/07/2017, free
  • An application by the mother of an abducted child to commit the uncle of the child to prison was struck out due to a procedural irregularity in the form of the Collection Order served on him where a penal notice in the required language was not prominently displayed on the front page. Judgment, 22/09/2015, free
  • Husband initiated divorce proceedings in France, wife subsequently started proceedings in the UK. The question here was whether the UK court should decline jurisdiction by dismissing the wife's application or by whether it could be revived in the event that the husband's French suit was dismissed. Judgment, 29/01/2016, free
  • Appeal by father against a child arrangements order and s91(14) order. The appeal against the s91(14) order was allowed because the application had only been sprung on the father in cross-examination. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Judgment in a case where a mother was seeking enforcement of a child maintenance order made in France in the PRFD under Rule 33.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which permits an application to be made for an order for such method of enforcement as the court may consider appropriate. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • In brief: A further hearing in these long-running proceedings where the children had been taken to Nigeria and had been prevented from returning to England. An order had previously been made that the children’s return to England would be facilitated by the father’s (“F”) brother / F’s son (depending upon whose version of the identity of the same man you relied upon) in time for this hearing. None of the children had been returned and the brother / son, who had been ordered to attend the hearing, had gone missing. A warrant was issued for the brother / son’s arrest and the mother (“M”) was able to personally serve F with a fresh application to commit him to prison for further alleged contempts of court (F already being in custody). Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • A costs order in the sum of £15,000 was made against the father of the child after he had continually breached court orders. Judgment, 13/10/2017, free
  • Child Arrangements Order provided that the child, whose mother had died, was to live with the mother's friends and not the father. The father was also ordered to pay £10,000 as a contribution to the other party's costs. Judgment, 12/04/2016, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, 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
  • A wrongful removal case where the mother had taken the child to Wales without the permission of the Italian court or the father. Her appeal here was against a refusal to allow her to instruct an adult psychiatrist as an expert and against the order for return. The appeal on ground 1 was dismissed on the basis that the material before the court simply failed to establish that such an instruction was "necessary". The appeal against the order for return also failed. Judgment, 13/03/2014, free
  • The judge refused to register a Russian order which ordered the child to be returned to Russia on the bases that i) the child had not been heard; ii) she would be separated from her mother and her new family because the mother could not go back to Russia as she was at risk of imprisonment. Judgment, 10/08/2018, free
  • Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • Amendments concerning children as parties under the Family Law Act 1986 and changes to procedure and status of applications to set aside financial remedy orders. In force from 3 October. SI, 12/09/2016, free
  • Judgment, 02/03/2012, free
  • The half-brother of a party to family proceedings back in 2002 was applying to have access to the original judgment from Singer J and to various experts' reports. The M was applying to be released from her undertaking not to communicate with the media with a view to displacing the findings made against her by Singer J. The half-brother was allowed access to a limited number of documents and the M's application was dismissed. Judgment, 30/05/2018, 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, 03/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 08/11/2012, free
  • F's appeal against orders which refused direct contact between him and his children, imposed a s.91(14) order for a period of five years and that F, who was a litigant in person before the court, should pay the mother's costs. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 07/08/2013, free
  • Applications, in financial remedy proceedings, to exclude media from future hearings and for a reporting restriction order. Cobb J concluded that accredited media could attend private hearings but placed restrictions on disclosed financial information and the children's names. Judgment, 11/04/2017, free
  • In a factually complicated case, in which the mother (“M”) effectively only gave written submissions, Mostyn J concluded that while it would lead to inconsistent judgments in England and Poland, he should order the children be returned here Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Pension sharing pursuant to section 24B of the MCA 1973 is not available in relation to any foreign pension, although other routes could be adopted to achieve direct sharing of a foreign pension. Judgment, 11/11/2016, free
  • Judgment, 13/02/2013, free
  • Applications by the father of a child, who was involved in private law proceedings, for committal orders against two members of the Cafcass team and the mother's solicitor for what he perceived to be their respective failings and breaches of court orders. Applications refused. Judgment, 21/08/2015, free
  • Application for costs by a solicitor, in a personal capacity, arising from committal applications against her and Cafcass officers involved in private law children proceedings. The applicant was awarded costs on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 29/07/2015, free
  • H's appeal against a financial provision order which included an order providing for the payment of 25% of H's annual bonus to W. King J allowed the appeal to the extent that the District Judge should have imposed a cap on the amount the W could receive. She said that "the inherent uncertainty of bonus payments provides, in part, the reason why that the setting of a cap is essential in order to avoid the unintentional unfairness which may arise as a consequence of a wholly unanticipated substantial bonus paid to the H. Such a payment would result in W receiving a sum substantially in excess of that which the District Judge regarded as appropriate in order to maintain her maintenance at a fair level." Judgment, 20/01/2014, free
  • Appeal against committal orders in relation to breach of an undertaking and 2 other orders after the court found that the husband had not disclosed certain documents in this long running financial provision case. The appeals were dismissed apart from the one in relation to the breach of the undertaking. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • An application to commit the father to prison for contempt of court after he failed to disclose the whereabouts of his son was dismissed on procedural grounds, namely that permission to make the application had not been sought from the court. Judgment, 02/12/2016, free
  • F's application for direct contact with his 2 children had been refused. In this judgment, the judge gives permission to appeal - the children were under the false impression that certain allegations against F were true which led to them refusing to have contact with him. The judge ruled that "given the fact that this is likely to be the first case after Re A which considers what a court should do in circumstances where Article 8 is engaged and allegedly breached, I would direct that the full court should be three Lady or Lords Justices, one of whom must be a family Lord or Lady Justice and preferably two of the three should be." Judgment, 19/01/2015, free
  • Application by the Father for a wasted costs order against the Local Authority which had been directed by the Court to prepare a report in the proceedings pursuant to section 37 of the Children Act 1989. Judgment, 11/07/2013, free
  • Final orders in financial remedy proceedings where the assets were worth £40m, the wife had special medical needs as a result of a brain tumour and the German husband was absent from the final stages of these proceedings. Cobb J also considers, among other things, arguments on inherited wealth, whether the Duxbury or Ogden tables are appropriate to cater for the wife's needs and whether the husband had been served properly. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Judgment, 31/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • High Court prevents W from making public bare terms of her open financial offer to H Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Negligence claim against the firm of solicitors who were acting for the wife in financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 09/03/2017, free
  • Training note, 11/06/2015, members only
  • Enforcement orders against the husband were set aside due to glaring omissions that characterised the decision making processes in various financial remedy hearings. Judgment, 25/01/2017, free
  • Judgment, 21/09/2012, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision in which no order for contact was made with respect to the eldest child, and only limited provision was made for indirect contact to the youngest child. The appeal was allowed but the judge rules that it was contrary to the welfare interests of either of the children to contemplate a re-hearing. Judgment, 06/02/2018, free
  • Application by a same sex couple for parental orders in respect of twins born to a surrogate mother in the USA. At the end of the judgment, the judge emphasises the need for parental orders to be made promptly in respect of children born as a result of international surrogacy agreements. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • Judgment in contact case where the father was alleging alienation by the mother. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 09/04/2014, free
  • Husband's appeal against a financial remedy order where the costs involved were completely disproportionate in relation to the assets. The appeal was allowed but the judge said that "this is a case that cries out for mediation". Judgment, 24/06/2015, free
  • Appeal by wife against decision to set aside a financial remedy order on the grounds that by giving judgment prior to the granting of decree nisi the judge had made an made an order in breach of s23 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which prohibits the making of an order in financial remedy proceedings prior to decree nisi. Appeal allowed and costs order made against the husband. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • Robust guidance from Mostyn J that, for those cases where a residence or similar parental responsibility made in another EU country exists and a child has allegedly been wrongfully retained, parties should be looking at Brussels II Revised and not Hague. Judgment, 05/07/2012, free
  • Appeal against order for costs arising from from private contact and residence proceedings. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against a child arrangements order which directed that the children live with the mother and which dismissed the father's application for direct contact with his children providing for there to be only indirect contact for an unspecified period of time in the future. The issue before the court was whether the recorder had, prior to refusing the father's application, failed adequately to consider alternative means by which direct contact could be introduced to the children. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 19/02/2016, free
  • The father of the child had failed to make monthly payments to the mother following an order made in Poland. Believing the father to be living and working in the UK, the mother applied for enforcement of the order under EU Council Regulation 4/2009 but attempts to trace the father have so far been unsuccessful and he has not yet been served with an order to attend court. The judge in this case confirmed that s.31E MFPA 1984 authorises magistrates to issue a warrant to secure the attendance of an alleged maintenance defaulter who fails to appear in response to their summons (although it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of the magistrates to issue a warrant in this case if the father was served and failed to attend has not yet directly arisen). Judgment, 15/05/2017, free
  • Mother applied in the UK for the enforcement of a Russian order, made in April 2013, relating to contact with her daughter. However, the date the Hague Convention came into force as between the UK and the Russian Federation was 1 June 2013 and so the English court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the order. Despite this, District Judge Robinson erroneously made an order for registration of enforcement of the Russian order which the father sought to have set aside. The mother pursued her application, arguing that Russian lawyers said that the UK court had jurisdiction, but this was contrary to advice from junior and leading counsel that there was no prospect of success. The order was set aside. Costs for the husband had by now amounted to over £38,000. A costs order in the sum of just over £3,700 was made against the mother after a thorough scrutiny of the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs incurred, the judge remarking that in this case, where the single question in the case was entirely straightforward in nature and answered by one unassailable legal submission, the costs incurred were excessive. Judgment, 07/09/2016, free
  • Case note, 28/05/2012, free
  • Mother's appeal against decision to return child to Malta where the High Court judge had met with the child in court and it was submitted that her decision had been improperly influenced by what was gleaned at the meeting. Appeal allowed Judgment, 02/05/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning costs in private law children proceedings. Gloster LJ allows the mother's appeal against a costs order as conduct was not 'unreasonable or reprehensible' and therefore the judge had been wrong in principle to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2014, free
  • The mother's argument, that a summary return of the child to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation, was rejected. The child did object to returning to Bulgaria, but despite this the court concluded that he should be returned; accordingly the father's application for summary return under the Hague Convention succeeded. Judgment, 16/11/2015, free
  • Application by the W for the continuation of an ex parte freezing order made against the H, where the W had obtained documentation relating to the H's assets illegitimately. Application declined. Mostyn J appended to the judgment standard examples of freezing and search orders which were considered by the President and authorised to be promulgated for general use (these example orders are also listed under Precedents). Judgment, 26/06/2013, free
  • Appeal against the Court of Appeal's ruling that 4 children, whose mother had taken them to her home country of Spain, had become habitually resident in Spain from that date. Despite the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the older child T should not be the subject of an order for return to Spain, the reversal of the judge’s ascription to them of a habitual residence in Spain on 5 January 2013 was necessary, for that would preclude any order of the Spanish court under article 11(8) of B2R. There was a subsidiary appeal against the refusal to allow T to be a party to proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed both grounds of appeal and reluctantly remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide whether any or all of the four children were habitually resident in Spain on 5 January 2013. If it turns out that any or all of the three boys were, it will also have to be decided whether to return them to Spain when their older sister, T, or any of their brothers, is not to return will place them in an intolerable situation. Judgment, 21/01/2014, free
  • Appeal by mother in private law proceedings against refusal of application for the reopening of findings made by magistrates earlier in the proceedings. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 06/11/2017, free
  • Appeal by H against a refusal to make an order to secure a witness statement from the police that he thought would assist him in proving allegations of his wife's unreasonable behaviour. Appeal dismissed, partly because it was a case management decision and the CoA should only interfere in rare circumstances, and partly because the judge was aware of the need to meet the overriding objective of the FPR to deal with cases expeditiously. Black LJ also notes that the couple could have been divorced by consent by now as 2 years had passed since separation. Judgment, 11/02/2015, free
  • Despite the H signing a pre-marital agreement promising that he would not make any claim either during or after the marriage in relation to the wife's separate property or to gifts made or to be made to her by her "wealthy family, the H was claiming a sum to re-house himself which would entail the selling of the FMH which had been transferred to the W by her father. The W's father made her promise not to sell the house without his permission. Counsel for the H applied for the W's father to be excluded from the court while the W was being cross-examined. The application was granted. Judgment, 03/03/2014, free
  • Father was seeking a stay of English wardship proceedings on the basis that Singapore was clearly the more appropriate forum in which to resolve proceedings relating to the future care of his son. The judge ruled that proceedings should continue in the UK saying: "Of principal and magnetic importance in my judgment is the presence of [the child's] parents in this jurisdiction; the fact that each is likely to remain resident in this jurisdiction for at least the next few months; and the significant issue of the mother's ability to re-enter Singapore and conduct proceedings in that jurisdiction in circumstances where she has neither immigration clearance nor the means to support her travel to and from that jurisdiction, nor legal representation in the Singapore courts." Judgment, 27/07/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order that she return the children to the UK from Poland after the English court ruled that they, and not the Polish court, had jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the court saying that the Polish court became and had remained seised of jurisdiction in relation to the children. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • The Court of Appeal refused the mother (“M”) permission to appeal an earlier decision to refuse to admit expert evidence obtained by M without the court’s permission and without notice to the other parties. M's actions were a clear breach of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Hearing to decide contact between the children and F in a case where the M had been forcibly stranded in Pakistan. A costs order in the sum of £70,000 was made against the grandmother. Judgment, 23/08/2016, free
  • Proceedings concerning the legal parentage of a child where Ms M claimed that he had been conceived through sexual intercourse and Mr F, a sperm donor who Ms M met via the internet and who was the biological father of the child, said conception was as a result of artificial insemination. If conception was through sexual intercourse, Mr F would be the legal parent but if it was the result of artificial insemination the question of parentage would depend on the effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • This judgment describes the serious consequences that have arisen for one family after a parent covertly recorded a child without her knowledge. Judgment, 26/05/2016, free
  • The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of contested Schedule 1 Children Act proceedings that resulted in an order against the father following a claim being brought by the mother on the child's behalf. Judgment, 04/11/2016, free
  • Wife was seeking costs in the region of £1.5m against the Husband and the Companies (which had said they were the beneficial owners of various properties). Looking at the factors set out in Part 28.3 and CPR Part 44.2(4) there was no doubt that the conduct of both the Husband and the Companies had been such that the making of an order for costs against both the Husband and the Companies was inevitable. The only outstanding issue was as to the basis of assessment; indemnity or standard. Litigation conduct of the type exhibited by the Husband and, at his direction, the Companies, was of the most extreme type and so therefore costs were assessed on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 27/11/2013, free
  • Financial remedy proceedings in which the court had to decide to what extent, if any, H should pay a lump sum to W and how to deal with the parties' pension entitlements. Judgment, 23/07/2015, free
  • Appeals by H against two orders directing he pay monies W and which raise points concerning making of such orders where a previous order for periodical payments has been discharged but a consequent lump sum order is the subject of enforcement. Judgment, 19/12/2014, free
  • In these long running financial proceedings, the parties had agreed to attempt mediation, and the wife undertook not to make any further statutory demand prior to the conclusion of the mediation. The wife maintained that it was an implied term of the agreement that the husband would pay the rent on a substitute property, and he had breached this implied term. She subsequently issued an application for general enforcement under FPR 2010 rule 33.3(2)(b) for a sum of nearly £2m. The husband argued that the wife was debarred from proceeding to enforce by virtue of the agreement to mediate. The judge ruled that the agreement could not be given effect so as to prevent the wife from applying for enforcement until and unless mediation has taken place. A bar of that nature would operate as a restriction on the right to apply to the court. The most that could be done in balancing the obligation to mediate under the agreement and the right of access to justice was for an adjournment to be ordered for a specified period to give the parties a final opportunity to engage in ADR and an adjournment was made for 8 weeks. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • Application by a former wife for general enforcement of an order made by Charles J in May 2005 Judgment, 17/03/2016, free
  • Application to appeal a consent order primarily on the grounds that the wife did not have capacity to give consent at the time of the agreement. Application allowed. Judgment, 27/08/2014, free
  • Application by former wife for an appointment of a Receiver under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act, an extended civil restraint order pursuant to Rule 4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and an extension of a freezing injunction in a case where the former husband had defaulted on child maintenance payments for some years. Judgment, 01/05/2014, free
  • The court had to decide whether the English or German court was first seised in circumstances where the wife had initially not validly served the divorce petition on the husband and the husband then served his petition in Germany during the subsequent period. The issue here was whether there had been an abuse of process on the part of the wife after the husband claimed that she had issued her petition simply to secure the English jurisdiction in the event that a divorce was needed and in fact the marriage had not at that time irretrievably broken down. The court ruled that the husband had known about the wife's petition before it was validly served and before he issued his own petition and that the English court had jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/10/2018, free
  • Husband had been granted permission to appeal a financial remedy order on two limited grounds. He then applied for permission to appeal on a third ground concerning the failure of the District Judge to swear in the witnesses. This was also allowed but the Court of Appeal ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal on this ground. The appeal in the present case was an appeal in relation to which permission was granted on limited grounds following an oral hearing and it was not therefore open to the husband to argue the no sworn evidence point on the hearing of the appeal itself. Judgment, 09/01/2015, free
  • Mother's appeal against orders whereby the order of the Bucharest Court of Appeal for her to return her son to the father who lived in Romania was recognised and registered for enforcement in England. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that: 1) in the case of both orders, recognition must be refused under BIIR Article 23(b), (c) and (d); and 2) one order must be quashed for fundamental procedural defects. Judgment, 01/08/2014, free
  • Appeal by wife against an order, which said that the parties had divorced in France in 2015 and therefore the Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute granted in the UK in 2016 were null and void, on the basis that she did not have proper notice of the French divorce. The appeal was dismissed and the UK Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute were set aside. Judgment, 12/03/2018, free
  • W's application for " interim interim" financial provision for herself and for the two children of the marriage, to endure until the next hearing, in February 2014. The H claimed that there had been a non-proceedings divorce in his home country and it was very uncertain that the W here would be entitled, by reason either of res judicata or estoppel, to pursue a third petition and demonstrate that the marriage had not been previously dissolved in the husband's home country. The judge decided that he should only award maintenance pending suit to relieve a real predicament of need, and in this case there was none. Child maintenance awards made but no awards were made for the W. Judgment, 20/01/2014, 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
  • Appeal by husband against a suspended committal order, variation order and order for costs. The committal order was set aside due to procedural errors, the costs order falling with it, but the appeal against the variation order failed. Judgment, 11/08/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • German mother was trying to enforce a German child maintenance order against the English father by applying directly to the Family Court. Mrs Justice Roberts referred, by means of questions, the preliminary issue, which was whether an application for enforcement of this type of maintenance order can be issued directly in the Family Court or whether, in all cases, the application must first be lodged with the Lord Chancellor for onward transmission to the Family Court through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Unit ("REMO"), to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgment, 21/01/2016, free
  • A long running case in which the 'W' claimed that she and the 'H' had been married in Nigeria and that she could pursue financial relief proceedings in England. The 'W' had brought proceedings by way of various petitions: the 2003 petition, the 2003 amended petition, the 2004 petition and the 2004 amended petition. The Nigerian court found that no marriage ceremony had taken place and so the issues for the court to decide were: 1) The Respondent's application to dismiss and/or strike out the 2003 Amended Petition; 2) The Respondent's application to set aside an order granting permission for the Petitioner to bring proceedings under the 1984 Act and/or for an order dismissing or striking out those proceedings; 3) The Petitioner's application for orders, directions and interim payments in her application under the 1984 Act; 4) The Respondent's application to dismiss and/or strike out the 2004 Amended Petition; 5) The Petitioner's application for orders, directions and interim payments in her application made by the 2004 Amended Petition; 6) The Respondent's application for repayment of the sums he has paid by way of maintenance pending suit in the 2003 Petition and in the proceedings under the 1984 Act. Judgment, 15/10/2013, free
  • Wife's appeal against the setting aside of an order for periodical payments after the judge held that he did not have the power to make wholesale variation and changes to his original order. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 14/04/2016, free
  • Mother's application under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of the child to Canada, from where it was alleged the child has been wrongfully retained. The court ruled that the child was not habitually resident in Canada immediately before or at the time of the alleged wrongful retention but was habitually resident in England. In light of this finding the mother's claim failed. Judgment, 24/01/2017, free
  • Application for permission to appeal an order in financial remedy proceedings on Barder grounds. The original order had envisaged that the mother would look after the children for 70% of the time but a subsequent incident between wife and daughter meant that the children were now full time with the father. Application granted (even though the mother was unheard in this hearing). Judgment, 15/09/2015, free
  • In force from 7th August 2017 Practice note, 24/07/2017, free
  • Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application to set aside a consent order in financial remedy proceedings which was made in 2005. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/03/2017, 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
  • Judgment, 02/12/2012, free
  • Appeal against a refusal to grant a wife a decree nisi of divorce on the basis that the wife had failed to prove, within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, even though the judge had found as a fact that the marriage had broken down. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/03/2017, free
  • Appeal against dismissal of step-father's applications to adopt the two children of his Polish partner both of whom had different Polish fathers. In the words of McFarlane LJ the case "presents a timely opportunity to consider how an adoption application brought by a child's step-parent is to be approached." He allowed the appeal and made the orders. Judgment, 15/08/2014, free
  • A case where the mother (“M”) and three children sought various long-term protective injunctions protecting them against the father (“F”) and, in respect of the youngest child, various orders relating to child arrangements and restricting F’s ability to exercise parental responsibility. Most interestingly, the court endorsed an injunction which prevented F holding himself out as being any of them in any electronic mail, social networking or other communications – it is believed to be the first time that such an order has been made. Judgment, 29/07/2014, free
  • Judgment, 22/10/2012, free
  • Application for registration of an Order, originally made in the Australian Family Courts, under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. Moylan J has handed down the judgment to explain the procedure available when such an application is made. Judgment, 18/08/2014, free
  • Husband's application to appeal a non-molestation order against him and an occupation order in respect of the parties' matrimonial home. Application dismissed. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Suspended prison sentence was imposed on Mr Prest for failing to pay sums due by way of periodical payments. Judgment, 23/10/2014, free
  • Mr Justice Moylan refuses H’s request to adjourn W’s judgment summons proceedings (where she sought committal for non-payment of maintenance – H claimed he was too unwell to attend) on the grounds that if H was well enough to travel to America on holiday with the children for three weeks plus, he was well enough to attend court. Judgment, 18/11/2014, free
  • Appeal against grant of decree nisi as being undefended where the appellant alleged that his answer to the divorce petition had been posted in time. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 21/05/2014, 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
  • Judgment from the President in contact proceedings where the mother was publicly funded and seeking a s91(14) order but the father was unrepresented. The President adjourned the hearing to see whether there should be an intervenor eg MoJ, to consider the issues of funding the proceedings in such circumstances. Judgment, 09/06/2014, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • Orders for the recognition and enforcement of Spanish orders, ordering the return of the children to Spain, were set aside. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • As part of their divorce settlement, the parties agreed that the ex-wife would keep the first £100,000 of any inheritance from her mother and the balance over that amount would be split equally between them. The mother left exactly £100,000 to the ex-wife with the remaining £150,000 going to the ex-wife's children. The ex-husband brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the ex-wife's mother's will, alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The Deputy Master decided that H had no sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. The ex-husband's appeal against that decision was allowed. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning validity of 180 divorce petitions fraudulently obtained for non-domiciled Italian couples through the use of a single UK PO box address. The divorce petitions were set aside. Judgment, 01/10/2014, free
  • Application by mother, opposed by the father, for permission to remove child to Angola permanently. Application granted but subject to conditions. Judgment, 17/06/2015, free
  • Application for an adoption order where the applicant had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with his mother. The adoption order was made. Judgment, 05/03/2015, free
  • Judgment, 14/06/2013, free
  • In this judgment the court has given guidance on the allocation of cases of international surrogacy; specifically that all applications for parental orders when the child or children are born outside the UK are to be allocated (not transferred) to be heard by a judge of the High Court. The guidance contained in this judgment extends to the role and investigations to be carried out by the parental order reporter; specifically that, in order to complete the parental order report, the child must be seen with the Applicants by the reporter to enable her/him to assess the child's welfare satisfactorily, in all circumstances except if there is judged to be sufficient independent evidence. Judgment, 08/12/2015, free
  • Appeal against a decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • After considering issues in relation to service, an order was made for the child to return to the UK from Spain in the short term so that CAFCASS could make an assessment which would inform the court before a final decision on where the child should live could be made. Judgment, 03/05/2018, free
  • Father's application for the return of his daughter to France after she was wrongfully removed by the mother to England. The application was granted. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Mr Justice Cobb provides guidance in cases where committal is sought for breach of an order (in this case, the original order breached was the return of a child to this jurisdiction). The respondents (the child’s father and grandmother) did not attend the committal hearing and so Cobb J set out a checklist of considerations. Although he concluded it was safe to proceed in F’s absence, Cobb J held that were any of the alleged breaches proved, sentencing would be adjourned to allow F to make representations. Judgment, 09/02/2015, free
  • An order for costs was made against the Father because he had deliberately sought to obscure his daughter's habitual residence which was found to be the UK not Israel. In the words of the judge: "he knew full well how unhappy his daughter had been [in Israel].He was simply determined to get the outcome to the litigation he wanted..." Judgment, 13/11/2014, free
  • ToLATA case in which Mr Justice Holman expressed his exasperation at the disproportionate costs that had been incurred relative to the value of the available assets, and the volume of documentation which had been produced in contravention of PD 27A, limiting bundles to 350 pages of A4 unless the court gives permission otherwise. Judgment, 05/12/2014, free
  • Consent order drawn up, after which the wife discovered that the value of the shares in question were far in excess of the figure prepared for the hearing. Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal against a refusal by the judge to set aside the order. Wife's appeal allowed after the Supreme Court held that the High Court judge would not have made the order he did, when he did, in the absence of husband's fraud, and the consent order should have been set aside. He had also been wrong to deprive the wife of a full and fair hearing of her claims by re-making his decision at the hearing of the application on the basis of the evidence then before him. Judgment, 14/10/2015, free
  • Application to appeal a costs order made against the H in financial provision proceedings where his s37 MCA application had been struck out because s37 was not the appropriate vehicle to set aside the disposition relating to a property. Application refused. Judgment, 02/09/2013, 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, 08/02/2012, free
  • In a tweet: Non-mol order can be made to supplement an injunction made under inherent jurisdiction Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Care proceedings case where Marlborough Family Service refused to undertake a multi-disciplinary assessment of the parents and children because of a lack of funding by the LSC. Judgment, 16/05/2013, free
  • Appeal against the striking out of the H's application to vary a maintenance order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 08/07/2013, free
  • Wife was applying to have the husband's application to vary the terms of a maintenance order, which included maintenance to be paid after her re-marriage, struck out on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The application was refused. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • Applicant husband's application for permission to appeal in respect of 3 orders made in relation to the enforcement of a financial remedy order made in 2012. Judgment, 26/05/2016, free
  • Directions in respect of a W's application for disclosure of documents from H which she said could potentially be relevant to two issues: 1) whether certain trusts were nuptial and 2) whether the assets of those trusts were resources available, or likely to be available, to H. Judgment, 03/06/2013, free
  • Application by adult beneficiaries of certain trusts to be joined as parties to financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • Judgment, 06/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 06/06/2012, free
  • The wife's divorce petition was issued in England in October 2015. An attempt to serve the petition on the husband was made in February 2016 in Germany where he was living at the time, but this failed because of insufficient address details being given by the wife. In the meantime, the husband had commenced divorce proceedings in Germany in January 2016. The husband was appealing against a ruling that the English court was first seised on the grounds that the wife had failed to take the required steps to serve the petition. The appeal was dismissed, the court saying that Rule 7.8 FPR simply requires the petitioner to serve the petition. No particular step is stipulated as having to take place "immediately" or by a certain date. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • Financial remedy hearing was adjourned pending a hearing to determine the husband's capacity. Judgment, 19/09/2018, free
  • Judgment, 14/02/2011, free
  • A relatively high value financial provision case where the parties had already spent more than £1m in legal fees. The judge reached a decision on distribution which "represent[ed] a fair outcome bearing in mind (i) the existence of non-matrimonial property; (ii) reattribution issues; (iii) the nature of the assets which each will retain at conclusion of proceedings and (iv) sharing." Judgment, 21/08/2014, free
  • Ex-husband's appeal against the dismissal of his application to strike out his ex-wife's claim for financial remedy, 19 years after they were divorced, and the granting of her application for an A v A order to finance the claim. Judgment, 08/05/2013, free
  • In this case which was described as 'a classic example of lawyers rushing off to the High Court at the first sign of complexity' Mr Justice Mostyn has confirmed that enforcement proceedings following the grant of a charging order should be heard in the family court, not the High Court. He concluded that the family court must be recognised as the sole forum for resolution of all family cases save for those specified in the Schedule to the President's Guidance. Judgment, 14/05/2018, free
  • Father's appeal against the setting aside of the judge's previous order (ordering the mother to return the child to Spain) because there had been a sea-change in the mother's mental health since the order was made, was dismissed. There was also discussion on whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a final order made under the 1980 Convention. Judgment, 16/08/2018, free
  • This case is also known as Kim v Morris [2012] EWHC 1103 (Fam) Judgment, 27/07/2012, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • In these long running and costly financial provision proceedings, the husband's appeal against an interim order pending appeal which refused to discharge the receiver was dismissed. Judgment, 20/12/2017, free
  • Husband's appeal against dismissal of his application to set aside financial remedy orders since 2010, partly on the grounds that orders for service by email were null and void. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/10/2017, free
  • Parties had reached agreement that the wife be paid a lump sum of £300,000. The issue here was whether the details of the settlement could be made public and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs relating to a Dean summons which was brought by her solicitors but then abandoned after the husband relented on the publicity issue. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • A parental order was granted following a surrogacy arrangement which took place in Nepal. The judgment includes some helpful advice from the FCO regarding overseas surrogacy arrangements. Judgment, 12/05/2016, 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
  • Judgment following a hearing to determine whether or not the court should exercise jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 in respect of an application by the mother for retrospective leave to remove the children temporarily to Spain and also for permission to relocate the children permanently in Spain. Judgment, 06/10/2016, 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
  • Mother's appeal against an order which ordered that the children be returned to Canada was dismissed. Judgment, 29/05/2018, free
  • In these Schedule 1 proceedings, mother wanted to be able to disclose to the Police and/or to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA] the fact that the father lied in statements and on oath in these proceedings. The father worked in the financial services sector and his lies consisted of his initially not disclosing within the proceedings the fact that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received a sum of £111,000. The judge had to weigh up the rights and interests of the parties between themselves against the public interest and ruled that the injunction, which prohibited disclosure of the proceedings to third parties without the permission of the court, was upheld. The mother also lost her application to have this judgment published in a non-anonymised form. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Judgment in long running financial remedy proceedings where the husband claimed he was now penniless. The judge found that his assets were £40m and awarded the wife half of that sum as that amount also matched her reasonable needs. Judgment, 22/11/2013, free
  • A case where the surrogate mother withdrew consent to hand over the baby to the commissioning parents. Judgment, 21/09/2016, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free

Published: 31/12/2010

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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