Family Law Hub

Fact Finding

Latest updates

  • The father sought contact with the child. The mother opposed all contact. In a fact-finding hearing the judge had found that the father had killed the maternal grandfather and attempted to kill the mother and maternal grandmother, by means of poisoning their coffee with thallium. The father now appealed on the basis that the judge's findings had been unsafe. King LJ's view was that the judge's order could not stand. Findings had been made which were not based on a rigorous analysis of the evidence. Nicola Davies LJ and Philips LJ agreed. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for retrial before a High Court judge, in order for the court to determine if the poison had been administered deliberately, and, if so, identify the perpetrator if possible. Judgment, 25/09/2020, free
  • The father sought a child arrangements order while the mother opposed any direct contact. The mother alleged that she was the victim of the father's domestic violence and abuse. The case had engaged special measures, with a screen being used for the mother and the father being required to provide Willans J with his questions for her in advance, though Willans J expressed "grave reservations as to the resulting quality of evidence received". The allegations of rape and abduction were not found to be proven, while both mother and father were found to have sent inappropriate communications of a harassing nature to each other. Though the mother was found to have demonstrated implacable hostility, Willans J was not persuaded that the effects of this amounted to parental alienation. Consideration would now have to be given to whether contact could be re-established. The case needed to progress, and a Children's Guardian would be appointed prior to fixing a directions appointment. Judgment, 25/05/2020, free
  • The father sought permission to appeal out of time against a district judge's finding of fact that he had abused his daughter. Francis J decided that the findings were so unsafe and their consequences so series that they could not be allowed to stand, despite the exceptional delay in appealing. He noted with surprise the district judge's assertion that the mother's counsel could conduct the cross-examination of the expert witness on behalf of the litigant-in-person father as well as the mother, a suggestion which Francis J said was "incorrect and plainly wrong". The expert had not been cross-examined on his misunderstanding of a previous judgment in the case, and in failing to depart from the expert's view the district judge fell into further error. The procedure adopted was irregular enough to cause injustice within the meaning of FPR Part 30. Permission to appeal out of time was granted, the appeal was allowed and the finding of fact set aside. The matter would be remitted for re-hearing by a High Court judge of the Family Division. Judgment, 19/05/2020, free
  • The parties had been in dispute about the beneficial ownership of a valuable property. The former husband sought permission to appeal from findings of fact made in contempt of court proceedings. He contended that despite being an unrepresented litigant he had given evidence without being informed of his right to silence. Peter Jackson LJ found that the court could not be satisfied that no injustice had occurred. If the husband had been informed that he was not obliged to give evidence, he might not have done so. This was a procedural irregularity serious enough to justify the granting of permission to appeal, and the appeal should be allowed. Popplewell LJ agreed. Judgment, 17/03/2020, free
  • The parents had split up and the boy was living with his mother. The father had applied for a child arrangements order. This was a fact-finding hearing with regard to allegations which, according to HHJ Tolson QC, would not "in the ordinary course, have had very much to say for the future" in terms of the boy's welfare. These included allegations of coercive control and that the father had raped the mother. The judge said that "the enquiry into this allegation of rape is fraught with difficulty" and that he did "not see why the mother could not, should not, have made life difficult for the father" during the events, while also noting that the mother would "often tell the father to stop". The judge's findings were that the sex was consensual, and more generally that the father was not coercively controlling. This decision was successfully appealed in JH v MF [2020] EWHC 86 (Fam), where Russell J DBE stated that the judge had employed "obsolescent concepts concerning the issue of consent". Judgment, 24/02/2020, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

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