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

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Case Law

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

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.


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)


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)


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)


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)


n a contact case a judge had misremembered the facts of a case and had developed a polarised view of the parties. He had minimised the significance of the domestic violence and failed to have regard to Re L the seminal authority on domestic violence. He failed to have regard to the reporting officer and the experts view as regards the effect the violence had upon the mother. His decision was flawed.

Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)


Appeal by the Wife against orders in ancillary relief proceedings.  Appeal allowed.


This case established that a declaration of trust regarding the family home could be upheld therefore making the property unavailable to the husband's creditors. The husband had made a declaration of trust in his wife's favour as she had insisted this be done to protect the family's financial security in the face of his gambling problems. At the time he had no significant debts.  The court ruled that the main reason for the declaration of trust being put in place in this instance was to maintain the man's marriage rather than protect his assets from creditors and therefore it was valid.


A shared residence case – the Court of Appeal supported the making of shared residence orders, even where the relationship between the parents was not especially harmonious.


In 2000 a father applied for a 'joint' (ie shared) residence order, arguing that he was being treated as a second-class Parent by authorities with whom he had to deal regarding the provision of information etc about the children. The mother sought a change in the contact pattern. The trial judge accepted the father's case and made a shared residence order. During the summer, problems arose over the children's return to the mother after a holiday abroad and she applied for an order that contact be supervised or suspended. The judge dismissed the application and ordered her to pay the costs of the hearing. The mother  appealed.

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