Ordering the would-be undertaker: the equitable reach of the Family Court – Family Law Week

‘Norma Cronin, solicitor at Hughes Fowler Carruthers and Mark Ablett, Senior Paralegal at Hughes Fowler Carruthers and soon to be pupil barrister at 1 Garden Court Family Law Chambers consider the troublesome issue of enforcement of undertakings in financial remedies cases.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 8th July 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Finance and Divorce Update (March 2016) – Family Law Week

‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during February 2016.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 5th March 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Family law: setting aside orders – Law Society’s Gazette

‘On 14 October the Supreme Court (SC) gave judgments in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61. Both Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil were successful in the respective consent orders being set aside due to significant non-disclosure by their former husbands.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 7th December 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Finance & Divorce Update November 2015 – Family Law Week

‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during October 2015.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 3rd November 2015

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Court of Appeal castigates judge’s conclusion on deprivation of liberty – UK Human Rights Blog

‘This was an appeal against a ruling by Mostyn J in the Court of Protection concerning a consent order between an incapacitated woman, the appellant, and the local authority ([2015] EWCOP 13). The judge had held that the 52 year old appellant, who had been severely incapacitated following surgery, had not been subject to deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by her 24 hour care package. In his view, the test for deprivation of liberty in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 did not apply. In paragraph 17 of his judgment Mostyn J remarked that it was impossible to see how the protective measures in place for KW could linguistically be characterised as a “deprivation of liberty”. Quoting from JS Mill, he said that the protected person was “merely in a state to require being taken care of by others, [and] must be protected against their own actions as well as external injury”. At para 25, he said that he found that KW was not “in any realistic way being constrained from exercising the freedom to leave, in the required sense, for the essential reason that she does not have the physical or mental ability to exercise that freedom”.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 21st October 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Court of Appeal allows appeal in deprivation of liberty case, criticises judge – Local Government Lawyer

Posted October 22nd, 2015 in appeals, consent orders, human rights, judges, local government, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in a case over whether a woman was being deprived of her liberty in her own home, and in the process criticised a High Court judge who maintains that the majority decision in the Supreme Court’s Cheshire West ruling is wrong.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 21st October 2015

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Williams v Law Society of England and Wales – WLR Daily

Williams v Law Society of England and Wales [2015] EWHC 2302 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 360

‘Where an intervention took place into a solicitor’s practice and a resolution was made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 for the vesting of moneys in connection with the solicitors current or former practice, it was moneys connected with that solicitor’s activities as a solicitor which vested in the Society.’

WLR Daily, 30th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Go away! – Nearly Legal

‘A curious case on the effect of a s.198 Housing Act 1996 referral of a homeless applicant to another Authority.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 21st June 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

CS v ACS and another – WLR Daily

CS v ACS and another [2015] EWHC 1005 (Fam); [2015] WLR (D) 171

‘The final sentence in paragraph 14.1 of Practice Direction 30A supplementing FPR Pt 30, stating that a consent order made by a district judge could be challenged only by way of an appeal, encroached on the right of a litigant in certain circumstances to apply to the court without first obtaining permission and was therefore ultra vires and should be treated as a nullity.’

WLR Daily, 16th April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

A spectacularly Misleading Case – nested in a real one – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Hamblen J observed that “the facts…are so extraordinary that they could have come from one of A.P. Herbert’s “Misleading Cases”. Yes indeed. A solicitor decided to make up three years of litigation, writing some fake judgments, pretending to instruct barristers, and churning out fictitious correspondence.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Regina (An Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland)) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily

Regina (An Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland)) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2014] EWCA Civ 1111; [2014] WLR (D) 367

‘The Secretary of State was not required by Parliament and Council Directive 2001/92/EC to conduct a transboundary consultation with the Republic of Ireland before granting planning permission to construct a nuclear power station near the Irish state if he was convinced that it was not “likely to have significant effects on the environment in another member state”, within article 7 of the Directive.’

WLR Daily, 1st August 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Greenwich Inc Ltd (in administration) v Dowling and others; Greenwich Inc Trading Ltd v Dowling and others – WLR Daily

Greenwich Inc Ltd (in administration) v Dowling and others; Greenwich Inc Trading Ltd v Dowling and others: [2014] EWHC 2451 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 334

‘If a consent order affected orders made by a judge it was advisable at first instance that any applications in respect of such an order should be made to a judge rather than a master. The court retained a general discretion whether before or after the parties had seen a draft judgment to continue to deliver a judgment where it was appropriate so to do. Even if the parties had effectively put an end to the dispute between themselves, that in itself could not stop the court from raising matters which concerned it.’

WLR Daily, 15th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Can A Consent Order Be Set Aside In Financial Proceedings? – Family Law week

Posted June 20th, 2014 in case management, consent orders, news, practice directions, setting aside by tracey

‘In the light of TF v PJ [2014] EWHC 1780 (Fam), Francis Wilkinson, barrister of Field Court Chambers, asks whether an application to set aside is permissible where there has been a change of circumstances which undermines the basis of a consent order – and suggests an answer.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 18th June 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Can you really divorce online for £37? – Daily Telegraph

‘Filing the papers can be cheap, but to ensure you get the outcome you want you will probably have to spend more.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 3rd June 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) – Supreme Court

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 18

Supreme Court, 12th March 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Gohil v Gohil (No 2) – WLR Daily

Gohil v Gohil (No 2): [2014] EWCA Civ 274; [2014] WLR (D)  126

‘It was not open to a first instance judge in family proceedings to set aside a financial relief order solely on the basis that there was fresh evidence sufficient to satisfy the guidelines which applied to the admission of fresh evidence in the Court of Appeal.’

WLR Daily, 13th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Mann v Mann – WLR daily

Mann v Mann: [2014] EWHC 537 (Fam);   [2014] WLR (D)  114

‘In proceedings to enforce an order for ancillary relief, not governed by FPR Pt 9, where the parties had made an agreement to engage in alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) the court could exercise its powers under FPR r 3.3(1)(b) to enable ADR to take place even if one party was trying to back out of that agreement. Although it was not possible to compel the parties to take part in mediation, since that would operate as a bar to enforcement, it was possible to robustly encourage mediation by means of an “Ungley order” to make it clear that an unreasonable refusal to participate in the ADR might well attract a costs sanction.’

WLR Daily, 5th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fraudulent non-disclosure: the latest Chapter – Family Law Week

‘Sarah Foreman, a solicitor at Vardags, analyses the Court of Appeal judgment in Sharland v. Sharland.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 28th February 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Extensions of time for witness statements post Mitchell and Lloyd ~ Don’t be caught out – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted February 14th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, consent orders, news, time limits, witnesses by sally

‘The recent decision in MA A Lloyd & Sons Ltd v PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) provides that parties who agree to extend time for service of witness statements must also apply to the Court for an order by consent. A mere written agreement is not sufficient. In the post-Mitchell, post-Lloyd world, parties are increasingly unlikely to agree extensions of time. Tom Shepherd considers the decision in Lloyd and highlights some practical pointers which parties who need to make or respond to an application to extend time for witness statements can consider. He also explains why this decision leaves us with a few unresolved questions.’

Full story

11 Stone Buildings, February 2014

Source: www.11sb.com

S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam) – WLR Daily

Posted January 16th, 2014 in arbitration, consent orders, financial provision, law reports by tracey

S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam);   [2014] WLR (D)  1

‘Where the parties had bound themselves to accept an arbitral award of the kind provided for by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (“IFLA”) Scheme, that generated a single “magnetic factor” of determinative importance and, in the absence of some very compelling countervailing factor or factors, the arbitral award should be determinative of the order the court made.’

WLR Daily, 14th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk