Family Law Hub


Latest updates

  • 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
  • The father sought the summary return of his son to California. HHJ Robertshaw allowed oral evidence on the issue of acquiescence but found that very little of value or relevance was gained. The written communications did not support a defence of acquiescence under Article 13(a), and the judge was satisfied that adequate arrangements could be made to secure the child's protection after his return, so the defence under Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm/intolerability) also failed. A return order was made. Judgment, 08/05/2019, free
  • Wife's application within financial remedy proceedings for a whistle-blower's statement to be admitted as evidence was refused. The new material fell well short of being capable of establishing fraud or iniquity that would justify overriding or ignoring the legal professional privilege which otherwise would attach to all that the whistle-blower's statement describes. Judgment, 28/02/2019, free
  • To be broadcast live on 6th March 2019. Listen in free on the day. News, 20/01/2019, free
  • The Court of Appeal refused the mother (“M”) permission to appeal an earlier decision to refuse to admit expert evidence obtained by M without the court’s permission and without notice to the other parties. M's actions were a clear breach of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Appointment of employment expert is, in vast majority of cases, not “necessary” Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Redacted family papers disclosable in other civil proceedings Case note, 29/09/2017, free
  • In a tweet: Clarification that criminal finding of fact is not determination of criminal charge or conviction Case note, 29/09/2017, free
  • In a tweet: The delay in ordering additional expert evidence to help court understand specific points of Iranian family law was justified Case note, 29/09/2017, free
  • Written reasons for dismissal of appeal, by the father in contact proceedings, against an order requiring a Cafcass officer to meet with his daughter to see if she could give evidence in a fact-finding hearing over allegations of violent behaviour towards the mother. Case note, 21/08/2014, members only

Latest training


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