Case Law

A husband's application for permission to appeal out of time against orders in relation to ancillary relief proceedings was refused. Court: Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Maintenance pending suit could be awarded where the jurisdiction of the court was in issue and were the case related to substantial sums of money. The maintenance pending suit could at the court’s discretion include an element for the petitioners’ legal advisors to pay the costs of the proceedings. Court: Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Court Of Appeal upheld Singer J’s judgment on 5 April 2005 - see [2005] EWHC 528 (Fam) in which he made an award of £4.5 million in a short childless marriage where the parties were still young and the husband’s wealth was over £30 million pounds.

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

The court allowed an appeal against a CSA liability order holding that a consent order stating that maintenance payments would be reduced by the amount of any CSA assessment and which provided for larger initial payments was intended to address arrears which had built up. Court: High Court (Administrative Court) (England and Wales)

The CA dismissed a husband’s appeal against the annulment of a bankruptcy order and a consequent ancillary relief order of £1,000,000 in the wife’s favour. The CA considered the law in relation to annulment of bankruptcy orders and the position where a Judge having given judgment is persuaded to reverse this. Court: Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)