Family Law Hub

Family Law Act 1996

Statute, published: 31/12/1996

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
  • Judgment, 30/12/2012, 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
  • Mother was ordered to bring the child back to Kent from Northern Ireland so that the father, whom she alleged had abused their daughter, could have contact. Judgment, 21/03/2017, 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
  • Parties who were in contempt of court for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the M and child in this widely publicised child abduction case were released from custody after the M's employer contacted the court with her contact details. Judgment, 13/11/2013, 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
  • Father's appeal against an order that contact with his children should be supervised and an against an order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989. He also challenged an order that the recorder made as to payment of the costs of an independent social worker who was engaged to supervise his contact visits. Judgment, 12/02/2016, free
  • Appeal concerning joint tenancy following breakdown of cohabiting couple's relationship. Judgment, 15/07/2015, 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
  • Judgment on costs arising from non-molestation proceedings and involving consideration of ex parte relief under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • Father was seeking to re-open matters which had been concluded against him after finding new evidence. The President dismissed the applications, saying "There is nothing of substance in any of the new materials, the recently discovered documents, which in any way impinges on the various orders which the father now seeks to challenge. In major part, the arguments he has put before me simply replicate arguments which the court has considered and rejected on previous occasions. Insofar as he is able to rely upon new materials, recently discovered documents, they take him nowhere." Judgment, 23/04/2015, free
  • Application for permission to appeal a decision transferring the tenancy of a property, which used to be held in joint names, to the wife's sole name. Application refused. Case note, 15/08/2013, members only
  • Application for permission to appeal a decision transferring the tenancy of a property, which used to be held in joint names, to the wife's sole name. Application refused. Judgment, 26/06/2013, free
  • Judgment, 04/06/2012, free
  • Judgment in committal application where it was alleged that a father had breached undertakings not to use intimidating language. Judgment, 03/12/2013, free
  • Appeal against a committal order made against a father who had breached his undertakings to the court not to publish information regarding contact proceedings on a social media website. Judgment, 26/06/2013, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings involving consideration of jurisdiction under Part III of the MFPA 1984. Mr Justice Moor found that he had jurisdiction and W was awarded shares in properties totalling c£8m. Judgment, 19/04/2015, free
  • Article, 22/05/2012, 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
  • 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
  • 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, 28/07/2003, 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
  • The Law Commission reported on 27 February 2014. It is an interesting, thorough and (at 231 pages) long document. This note by Max Lewis of 29 Bedford Row is intended to highlight the main issues that are likely to impact on practitioners, with some preliminary commentary on what the future might now hold as a result. Article, 28/02/2014, 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, 20/10/2010, free
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Judgment, 22/08/2013, free
  • When finding that a judge had erred in dismissing a father's application for direct contact with his children as there were a number of strong positive features which pointed in favour of the re-establishment of contact, the court highlighted the potential for parental responsibility to be given greater prominence in the resolution of private law disputes regarding the arrangements for the welfare of children. Judgment, 24/07/2012, free
  • Application for judicial review concerning legal aid for victims of domestic violence. The applicants argued that the regulations implementing LASPO frustrated its statutory purpose of protecting victims as the evidential bar was set too high. Application failed as "although the Court may conclude that delegated legislation is ultra vires, despite approval by Parliament, it must decline to intervene where, in effect, a claimant asks it to enter the political arena and substitute its views for those of Parliament" Judgment, 23/01/2015, free
  • Judgment, 23/01/2013, free
  • The husband's trustee in bankruptcy claimed that 2 charges against the FMH were a sham and that a Trust Deed and Consent Order should be set aside as constituting a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or a transaction at an undervalue for the purposes of section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Judgment, 25/04/2007, free
  • In a tweet: Non-mol order can be made to supplement an injunction made under inherent jurisdiction Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • A Forced Marriage Protection Order was made in respect of a 16 year old girl which was subsequently breached when she married. The issue in this case was whether or not the police could apply for the mother and aunt to be committed to prison for breaching the order when it was not in fact they who had applied for the order in the first place - the applicant was the girl herself. The judge could not add in the police as a category of applicants in this situation because it would involve the police becoming "prosecutor" in all but name in civil proceedings in which no crime is alleged (the breach of an FMPO is not a criminal offence). Judgment, 31/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 06/06/2012, free
  • Timothy Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row summarises the main points in the new EU Regulation which came into force on 11 January 2015 Article, 13/01/2015, free
  • Reminder that applications for freezing orders must be made to the Family Court at district judge level, unless the criteria in the Efficiency Statement justify it being heard at High Court judge level. The criteria in this case were not met, because, in effect, the applicant had already frozen the property by the imposition of his home rights charge. Judgment, 01/08/2017, free
  • Order forbidding the mother from removing the child, who was the subject of child arrangement proceedings, from the jurisdiction. Mr Justice Mostyn was especially critical of an ex-parte non-molestation order made by a DJ in clear violation of the President's Practice Guidance of 13 October 2014: "Family Court - Duration of Ex Parte (Without Notice) Orders." Judgment, 13/09/2016, 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
  • Judgment, 21/12/1998, free
  • In brief: A successful application by the mother (“M”) to prevent the father (“F”) from taking the child to his country of birth (Guinea) to visit his family because of the very high prevalence of FGM in that country (around 96% according to the UN's analysis and the expert evidence) and the likelihood that F's family would want to have the child "cut" or mutilated as a female child of the family. An FGMPO was made, lasting until the child’s 17th birthday with associated directions. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free

Published: 31/12/1996


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