Latest updates
- The Bill makes important changes to the legal process for married couples to obtain a divorce, for civil partners to dissolve their civil partnership, or for obtaining a judicial separation. News, 09/01/2020, free
- Divorcing couples will no longer have to blame one another for the breakdown of their marriage as a Bill that seeks to reduce family conflict enters Parliament today (7 January 2020). News, 08/01/2020, free
- The parents were British and Jordanian nationals, who married in Jordan in 2010 and moved to England in 2011. The mother applied for a declaration that their six-year-old son was habitually resident here, and for an order prohibiting the father from removing the boy from the care of the mother or from this jurisdiction, and from making further applications regarding the child in Jordan. The father argued that the Kingdom of Jordan was the appropriate legal forum for determination of the welfare issues. MacDonald J was wholly satisfied that the child was habitually resident in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, where he had been born and had lived for all but sixteen months. It was therefore the natural and appropriate forum for the welfare issues to be determined. Judgment, 03/01/2020, free
- The husband had been ordered to pay the former wife a lump sum of £20m in full and final settlement of her claims. Eleven years later, not a penny had been paid. A without notice order had been made appointing receivers of shares in a Spanish company, of which the husband had been found to be the beneficial owner. This receivership order was set aside following an application by other parties, and the wife now appealed against the set-aside order. Baker LJ decided that the judge had been wrong to set it aside on the mere assertion by the other parties that they were the owners of relevant shares. A third party could not expect to receive the protection of the court if it wasn't prepared for the rights it claimed to be scrutinised. Arguments on limitation, jurisdiction and estoppel also failed. Moylan LJ and Longmore LJ agreed, and the receivership order was restored, the latter adding that the application to set aside the receivership order had been misconceived from the start. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
- An appeal from the refusal of an anti-suit injunction with regard to proceedings in New Zealand, following the end of a six-year romantic relationship. Gray argued that Article 4(1) of the Judgments Regulation afforded rights to both parties, to her the right to be sued in and only in England, and to her former partner the right to sue her in and only in England. Patten LJ, Hickinbottom LJ and Peter Jackson LJ acknowledged that as a possible interpretation, but it was not one that they would wish to adopt in the present case unless required to do so. The anti-suit jurisdiction was exercised where appropriate to avoid injustice, but it was inevitably an interference with the process of the foreign court and must be exercised with caution. The appeal proceedings were stayed and the Court of Justice would be requested to give a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Judgment, 18/12/2019, free
Latest know-how
- A mother’s appeal was dismissed in circumstances in which she had challenged a return order made in respect of the child. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Names of the respondents made public in an attempt to shame them into returning children who had been removed from the jurisdiction in breach of a shared live with order. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- Proceedings in which the court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to make orders concerning parental responsibility for a child. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In brief: A father’s application for further directions to assist in the implementation of a return order made in respect of the parties’ two children, who were to be returned from England to the US, was dismissed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain F’s application. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Competing jurisdiction case in which a father’s application for a stay of proceeding was dismissed. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
Latest training
- Recording of talk given by Richard Todd QC at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 03/01/2020, free
- Recording of talk given by HHJ Edward Hess at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only
- Recording of speech from the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 3rd October 2019. Webcast, 03/10/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast 25th July 2018 featuring James Turner QC, Professor Liz Trinder, Simon from Resolution National Committee and Nicola Rowlings. Webcast, 26/07/2018, members only
Latest sources
- In force 8th August 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
-
FGM003 - Application to vary, extend or discharge a Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Protection OrderForm (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free