- This article concerns a case before the Court of Appeal: the appellant mother had been imprisoned for four weeks for repeatedly breaching an order that she return the parties’ children to the respondent father (in Mexico). The appellant successfully appealed on one procedural ground: that she had not been represented. Article, 19/11/2019, free
- The hearing concerned applications: for costs, for a general civil restraint order, and for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against “an exceptionally vexatious litigant”. Article, 14/11/2019, free
-
Can the tort of deceit exist between married couples? Case Summary: FRB v DCA [2019] EWHC 2816 (Fam)Cohen J recently gave judgment in FRB v DCA [2019] EWHC 2816 (Fam), a deeply unusual case concerning W’s application to strike out H’s claim for the tort of deceit relating to her so-called ‘paternity fraud’, which H had launched alongside financial remedy proceedings. The case – the latest in a long-running dispute between the parties - deals with an interesting point of law: whether the tort of deceit can exist between married couples. Article, 14/11/2019, free
- Speech given by Baroness Deech at this year's At A Glance Conference Article, 22/10/2019, free
- In a tweet: Wife's application to amend sole domicile as ground for divorce jurisdiction refused. Article, 02/10/2019, members only
- The wife sought to set aside a consent order, on grounds that she had not had legal advice regarding the fairness of the consent order, and that being on Interpol's wanted list had placed her under undue influence. DJ Duddridge dismissed the application. When a consent order has been approved it must be assumed that the judge had scrutinised the order and was satisfied that its terms were fair. Article, 29/04/2019, free
- The mother applied for permission to have the child come on holiday to Brazil, which was said to have a poor record of compliance with the Hague Convention 1980. Roberts J was persuaded that the potential benefits of spending time with the mother outweighed the potential risks of a wrongful retention, but mirror orders would need to be in place before travel. Article, 29/04/2019, free
Family Law Hub