Family Law Hub

Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014

SI, published: 14/04/2014

Topics

Items referring to this

  • Wife's application for permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Leave was granted but the main thrust of the judgment centred on which court was the most suitable to hear the case. Even though part 5 of The Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014 provides that non-consent applications should be heard by a judge of High Court Judge level, this was subject to 'the most effective and efficient use of local judicial resource and the resource of the High Court bench, given the nature and type of the proposed application' which in this case was very straightforward. The application was thus ordered to be issued in the family court at Stoke-on-Trent and allocated to a district judge for all further hearings. Judgment, 31/07/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning whether the court had power to order indemnities relating to two mortgaged properties. Judgment, 28/09/2017, free
  • Nicola Rowlings, PSL at Mills & Reeve, summarises the key changes for finance and divorce cases that will kick in with implementation of the single Family Court on 22 April. Practice note, 14/04/2014, registration required
  • 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
  • In force from 7th August 2017 Practice note, 24/07/2017, 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
  • The full report on the recommendations and observations on FR procedures, LiPs, standard orders and arbitration. News, 14/08/2014, 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

Published: 14/04/2014

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