A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020
Mon/Fri 9am-8pm       Sat/Sun 2pm-8pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Case Law

43 results - showing 21 - 30
1 2 3 4 5
Myerson v Myerson [2009] EWCA Civ 282

n the ‘credit crunch’ appeal Mr Myerson was granted leave to appeal but his appeal was refused. The CA held that the devaluation of the shares which had made up his portion on the equity in an agreed consent order did not constitute a Barder event and that in any event he had already invoked that statutory power of variation on which a hearing will take place later this year.

Court: Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Local Authority v N and another [2005] EWHC 1676 (Disclosure)

In general there is an obligation on a LA to share relevant information relating to a child in their care with its parents. Such information was held in the instant case not to include the fact that a foster father was HIV positive since the risk of infection was negligible, it was not information which would affect the court’s decision. Where the risk was not negligible the duty to disclose might overcome the foster father’s right and the duty owed to him. Court: High Court (Family Division) (England and Wales)

RE G (Children) CA, 27/7/2005

The wording of s1 of The Children Act 1989 did not create any presumption one way or another as to whether an order should be made or not. The court was required in each case to consider whether or not it was better for the child for there to be an order, as opposed to no order at all. In this case the simple fact that an agreement had been reached between the parties after issue did not mean that no order was necessary; it was not a case where there had been no disagreement at all and where the proceedings had been issued simply to get an imprimatur from the courts. The residence order should have been made as requested. Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

RE H (A Child) CA, 28/7/2005

Where a finding had been made that a father was within a pool of potential perpetrators of abuse against the child in question, and it was subsequently discovered that the teacher upon whose evidence the Judge had largely relied in making that finding had been in a collusive relationship with the child’s mother, it was necessary to retry the issue. Neither the mother nor the teacher had not been full and frank in their sworn testimony, and had omitted to mention important disclosures the child had made about other possible perpetrators: their evidence would have to be re-evaluated in a fresh hearing. Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

Re T (A Child) CA 6/10/2005

Unsuccessful appeal against residence order to F (German). Both parents had worked in the UK during the relationship. Upon separation the Italian M had returned with the child to Italy and had obstructed contact. The English Courts made an order in his favour. In spite of the child’s lack of family connections in the UK the Judge had been correct to make an order maximizing the child’s chance of spending good contact with both parents. Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

X v (1) Liverpool City Council (2) C C Merseyside CA 11/10/2005

The LA had obtained an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) in order to protect four children from the risk posed by their F insisting upon driving them to school in the absence of a valid driving licence and in circumstances where he was registered blind. The police power to remove a child under s46 Children Act 1989 could be invoked even where an EPO was in force, but where the Police officer was aware of the existence of the EPO police powers to remove should not be used unless there were compelling reasons to do so, i.e. where it was not reasonably practicable to remove under the EPO. The Police must have regard to the need to protect children from significant harm. Both the Police and the LA (who had played a significant part in the removal by the Police) were found to be in breach of Art 8 ECHR.

Re W (a child) (NAI: expert evidence) (CA) 01/11/05

While the instruction of experts in family proceedings must be controlled the court should be slow to refuse an application for a second expert opinion in cases such a Non-accidental head injury where certain evidence may be pivotal and by it's nature not easily challenged save for by another expert opinion.

Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

Re S (children) (access to papers) (CA) 03/11/05

An appeal was allowed where a Father following the conclusion of Contact proceedings had been injuncted from accessing or disseminating information from the papers. An order was substituted allowing the Father limited access to the papers.

Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

Re P (children) (shared residence order) (CA) 09/11/05

A judge’s refusal to order shared residence because it would affect the issue of control and power between the parents was held to be unreasonable. The CA decided this was a classic case for shared residence which would reflect the reality of the situation. Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

Re W (a child) (removal from jurisdiction) (CA) 21/11/05

The CA upheld a judge’s decision to allow a Father who was primary carer to emigrate with his new partner and the child to Australia. The mother who was not having direct contact with the child had argued that there was no evidence that the Father would be distressed by a refusal.

Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)

43 results - showing 21 - 30
1 2 3 4 5