Family Law Hub

Practice & Procedure

Latest updates

  • The mother appealed against an order for the summary return of her child to Israel. Moylan LJ held that the judge had properly taken into account the protective measures in place and had reached a determination that was open to him. However, what had happened in this case did not amount to a retention within the scope of the 1980 Hague Convention, so the judge's order would be replaced by one made under the inherent jurisdiction. Flaux LJ and Haddon-Cave LJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed save for that change. Judgment, 08/10/2019, free
  • Figures for April to June released. News, 30/09/2019, free
  • The husband died after being struck by a car in Ukraine, and had left no will. His estate was represented by his mother and brother, who claimed that the wife had been involved in the death, and brought a claim under the Forfeiture Act 1982. The wife applied for orders to strike out Ukrainian evidence relating to her movements prior to the death. Chief Master Marsh found that the court must be very cautious about excluding evidence that appears to be admissible before the trial. The Civil Procedure Rules provide the court with ample powers to ensure a fair trial. In this case he saw no compelling reason to exclude the evidence. Judgment, 25/09/2019, free
  • To be broadcast 1pm, Wednesday 9th October 2019. News, 02/09/2019, free
  • The questions were whether a child should be told of his biological father, whether the husband (the psychological father) should be allowed to take the child on holiday to France, and what directions should be given relating to a deceit claim. The mother did not want the child to be told, and the biological father denied his paternity. Cohen J decided that the child should be told when an independent social worker, agreed upon by the parents, thought the time was right. He refused permission for the holiday, not being confident that the child's return could be achieved if the husband took him to the UAE. Cohen J allowed the mother's application to strike out the deceit claim to proceed to a hearing. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources


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