Latest updates
- An application by the former husband for permission to appeal out of time against the order for him to pay to the wife a lump sum of £3.09m, as well as periodical payments of £4,750 per calendar month and other amounts. The husband argued that he could not afford to meet the terms of the order, and that the judge had taken half the value of the husband’s shareholdings in two private companies with no evidence-based indication as to how the husband would be able to raise the required lump sum. The wife's position was that the appeal was not just out of time, but hopelessly so, and that the evidence at trial had indicated that the husband had been planning to sell his business interests in order to satisfy the lump sum payment, rather than relying upon dividends. In Mr Recorder Salter's judgment, the delay here was "serious and lacking in any good explanation". He had no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that he was unable to grant relief from sanctions and that accordingly the application for permission to appeal had to be dismissed. Judgment, 21/11/2020, free
- The former husband applied for a legal services payment order pursuant to section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. As matters currently stood, neither party owned assets of any significant value. The former wife had been engaged in offshore litigation, which so far had proved unsuccessful, reducing but not eliminating the likelihood of recovery from that source. Roberts J was satisfied that legal services funding was not an option open to the former husband, nor was he a candidate for a commercial litigation funding arrangement. Focused legal advice could serve to narrow the issues which were currently preventing a settlement. The question then was whether the former wife was in a position to satisfy a legal services provision order. After considering the criteria in section 22ZB(1)(a)–(g), Roberts J decided that she would be able to procure the funding to meet such an order, and would not thereby be exposed to undue hardship or prevented from obtaining her own legal advice. The former wife was ordered to pay the former husband £95,000. Judgment, 21/11/2020, free
- A hearing at which Cobb J considered the appropriate sanction for breaches of a freezing injunction. The parties had never married, but lived together for about 20 years and had five children. The female partner had asserted that there had been 562 withdrawals from the account, and the vast majority had been proven. Cobb J took into account that it was not the female partner's wish to see the male partner imprisoned, and that the breaches had been deliberate, repeated, and over an extended period of time, leaving the account materially depleted, and that the male partner had at no time admitted his wrongdoing or accepted responsibilty for the breach. A six-month sentence of imprisonment would be the appropriate sanction, suspended for twelve months, to ensure his compliance with the extant final orders. Judgment, 18/11/2020, free
- The plan looks at how the civil and family courts are increasing capacity. News, 11/11/2020, free
- The mother was a Bulgarian national with indefinite leave to remain, and was currently in Bulgaria with the two-year-old daughter. She was prevented from bringing the daughter back to England by an order of the Bulgarian court. The father had dual Bulgarian and British nationality and was in London. The central issue before the court, in what was described as "somewhat chaotic litigation", was whether a passport order should be discharged, but the court also considered the mother's application for committal of the father, and the issue of whether the English court or the Bulgarian court had jurisdiction regarding the daughter. Cobb J directed that the father's British passport should be returned to him forthwith. The father was directed to execute all necessary documents and travel consents to ensure that the mother was forthwith able to return the daughter to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The committal order was dismissed; in Cobb J's view it was destined to fail. The case would be listed for further directions on the issue of habitual residence and jurisdiction once the International Family Justice Office had indicated whether it was able to establish the status of the proceedings in the Bulgarian courts. Judgment, 11/11/2020, free
Latest know-how
- The husband appealed a final financial remedy order made by Cohen J. The sole ground of appeal was that the judge failed to assess or take into account the husband’s needs, and only considered the wife’s needs. Case note, 20/10/2020, free
- On 14 August 2020, Gwynneth Knowles J (“the judge”) gave a judgment in the long-running case of Akhmedova v Akhmedov. The scale of the litigation was large and there were 10 respondents to the applications made by Tatiana Akhmedova (“W”), as well as 10 respondents to committal applications made by W. Case note, 10/09/2020, free
- 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
- In a tweet: Child determined to have insufficient understanding to conduct an appeal independently of a child’s guardian. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
- Hearing at which all allegations made by mother against father were held to be untrue and the judge stated that there ought to be an immediate resumption of direct contact. Case note, 04/11/2019, members only
Latest training
- Manage your family court forms and orders effectively and efficiently, whether you are at home, in the office or out and about. Quantum, our well known and well used family forms package, has been full rebuilt for the cloud - with improved security and time saving features. Learn how the program can be used to enhance your practice and revolutionise the way you complete your family forms and orders. Webcast, 21/10/2020, free
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 15th October 2020. Webcast, 20/10/2020, free
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on Wednesday 20th May 2020. Webcast, 21/05/2020, free
- Recording of live webinar, first broadcast on Wednesday 1st April 2020. Webcast, 02/04/2020, free
- Recording of webinar with Kelly Barnett, Senior Associate at Mills & Reeve & Helen Evans, Barrister at 4 New Square. This webinar was first broadcast on 29th January 2020. Webcast, 29/01/2020, members only
Latest sources
- The text of guidance requiring orders in non-financial cases to be drafted on the day of the hearing in the Central Family Court. In force from 12 November 2018 Practice direction, 23/11/2018, free
- Use this form to ask the President of the Family Division to authorise individuals working for the named charity to attend and report on family proceedings. Form (external), 01/10/2018, free
- Use this form if you have authority to attend and report on a family proceedings hearing. A form is needed for each hearing you attend. Form (external), 01/10/2018, free
- Came into force on 23 July 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- New Practice Direction on bundles, supplementing FPR Part 27, will come into force on 23 July. Practice direction, 20/06/2018, free