QS v RS – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2016 in adoption, children, citizenship, domicile, foreign jurisdictions, news by sally

QS v RS [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam)

‘The parents who were British citizens adopted a child in Nepal in 2008. Neither parent was habitually resident or domiciled in Nepal at the time of the adoption, both being domiciled in the United Kingdom. The family moved to Dubai and the child was granted British citizenship. Soon afterwards the marriage broke down leading to a troubled period of dispute between the parents. The father remained living in Dubai and the mother in due course resided in the United Kingdom. The child, aged 12, resided with the father in Dubai. The mother applied, inter alia, for the recognition of the child’s foreign adoption order at common law and for a declaration under section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was the adopted child of the parents for the purposes of section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The issue arose whether, in the light of the common law rule that an English court was not entitled to recognise a foreign adoption order unless the adopting parents were domiciled (or habitually resident) in the relevant country at the time of the adoption, there were any circumstances in which that rule did not apply or might not be applied such that a foreign adoption would be recognised in England notwithstanding that at the time of the adoption the adopters were not domiciled in that country.’

WLR Daily, 10th October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Justice for everyone: another Grayling reform bites the dust – UK Human Rights Blog

‘R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39.
Supreme Court bins the Government’s residence test for legal aid as ultra vires: just as the latest non-lawyer assumes the role of Lord Chancellor, the reforms made by the first non-lawyer to assume that role continue to fade away.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 14th July 2016

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Occupation Orders: Are we there yet? – Family Law Week

Posted July 12th, 2016 in domestic violence, domicile, housing, news by sally

‘Kevin Gordon, Pupil Barrister, Coram Chambers explores the courts’ developing approach to the application and granting of occupation orders under section33 (6) and (7) of the Family Law Act 1996 as an updated summary guide to practitioners.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 7th July 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Supreme Court to give reasons for allowing appeal over legal aid residence test – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Supreme Court will next week give its reasons as to why it concluded that the Ministry of Justice’s introduction of a residence test for civil legal aid via secondary legislation was unlawful.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

International Children Law Update: June 2016 – Family Law Week

‘Jacqueline Renton, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, reviews the latest key decisions in international children law.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 7th June 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Regina (Shindler and another) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and another – WLR Daily

Regina (Shindler and another) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and another [2016] EWCA Civ 469

‘The claimants were British nationals who, exercising their rights of free movement, had moved to European Union member states in the 1980s and remained living respectively in Italy and Belgium. They were not entitled to vote in the European Union referendum by section 2 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 since they had last been registered to vote in a United Kingdom election more than 15 years ago. The 2015 Act adopted the franchise for United Kingdom parliamentary elections, including the 15-year rule. The claimants sought judicial review, claiming that the 15-year rule constituted a restriction on their rights of free movement which was not objectively justified, by way of a declaration that section 2 of the 2015 Act was incompatible with their directly effective European Union law rights. Article 50(1) of the EU Treaty provided that any member state could withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements. The Divisional Court granted permission to proceed but refused the claim, holding that (i) section 2 of the 2015 Act fell within the scope of European Union law so that their rights of free movement were in principle engaged; (ii) section 2 was not a restriction on their rights of free movement; (iii) if section 2 were such a restriction, it was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective, namely of testing the strength of a British citizen’s links with the United Kingdom over a significant period of time; and (iv) the claimants were not disentitled to a remedy on account of delay.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

EU referendum: Two Britons lose EU vote legal bid – BBC News

Posted May 20th, 2016 in domicile, elections, freedom of movement, news, referendums, time limits by tracey

‘Two Britons living abroad have lost their Court of Appeal battle over the right to vote in June’s EU referendum.’

Full story

BBC News, 20th May 2016

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Ex-pats challenge to the EU referendum voting rules – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Schindler and MacLennan v. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] EWHC 957, Divisional Court 28 April 2016. An interesting, albeit unsuccessful, challenge to the rule which prohibits expatriates who were last registered to vote in the UK more than 15 years ago from voting in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 28th April 2016

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

High Court to hear British expats’ Brexit case today – Daily Telegraph

Posted April 20th, 2016 in brexit, domicile, EC law, freedom of movement, news, referendums, time limits by sally

‘British expats living in Europe are today heading to the High Court in the hope of forcing the Government to let millions of them vote in the EU referendum.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph,

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

UK legal aid residence test to be challenged in supreme court – The Guardian

Posted April 18th, 2016 in appeals, budgets, domicile, immigration, legal aid, news, Supreme Court, time limits by sally

‘The government’s residence test that deprives those who have lived in the UK for less than 12 months of legal aid faces a major challenge at the supreme court.’

Full story

The Guardian, 17th April 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

In the Matter of B (A Child): Habitual Residence and the Child-Centric Approach to Jurisdiction – Family Law Week

‘Habitual residence lies at the heart of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”), and is the cornerstone of jurisdiction in international child law.  Yet despite the centrality of the concept, its definition and application have always left much room for argument; and although it is often described as “a question of fact”, it has generated large volumes of authority at the highest level.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 14 February 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Appeal judges back legal aid residence test – Legal Voice

Posted December 1st, 2015 in appeals, civil justice, domicile, human rights, legal aid, news, ultra vires by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled that the government’s proposed residence test for civil legal aid is lawful, overturning a judgment by the High Court last year which found the measure to be discriminatory and unlawful. The test, if implemented, will restrict public funding for legal representation in civil cases to individuals who can prove that they are lawfully resident in the UK and have been so for a 12 month period at some time in the past.’

Full story

Legal Voice, 1st December 2015

Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk

Regina (Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor (Office of the Children’s Commissioner intervening) – WLR Daily

Regina (Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor (Office of the Children’s Commissioner intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 1193; [2015] WLR (D) 480

‘The decision of the Lord Chancellor to propose by statutory instrument an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to impose a residence test for those otherwise eligible for civil legal aid under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act was not unlawful or discriminatory.’

WLR Daily, 25th November 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Legal aid residence test ruled lawful – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted November 27th, 2015 in domicile, legal aid, news by sally

‘Government plans to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid eligibility are lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 27th November 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

UK’s discriminatory migrant residence tests are legal – preliminary EU ruling – The Guardian

Posted October 7th, 2015 in benefits, domicile, EC law, immigration, news by sally

‘The practice of discriminating against EU migrants in the UK by subjecting them to a residence test for benefit payments is legal, according to a preliminary European court ruling.’

Full story

The Guardian, 6th October 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Petter v EMC: Employment Share Schemes, Choice of Forum and Anti –Suit Injunctions – did the CA take a step too far? – Employment Law Blog

‘In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state?’

Full story

Employment Law Blog, 13th August 2015

Source: www.employment11kbw.com

Wherever I lay my hat… Residence tests for allocation policies – Nearly Legal

Posted August 11th, 2015 in domestic violence, domicile, homelessness, housing, local government, news by sally

‘This is, I think, a very significant case for all Councils who have or are considering setting residence requirements in their allocation policies.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 9th August 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH – WLR Daily

Posted March 4th, 2015 in appeals, contracts, domicile, EC law, jurisdiction, law firms, law reports by sally

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] WLR (D) 95

‘A tortious claim for inducement of breach of a contractual term providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court brought against a defendant domiciled in Germany where the harmful event did not occur in England could not be brought in the English court since article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 did not apply.’

WLR Daily, 26th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 26th, 2015 in banking, bankruptcy, domicile, insolvency, law reports by sally

JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others [2015] EWHC 396 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 82

‘When considering whether to exercise its discretion to make a bankruptcy order on a debtor’s petition, the court was to have regard to whether the petitioner could show (1) that he had a sufficiently close connection with England and Wales; (2) that there was a reasonable possibility of benefit resulting from the making of a bankruptcy order; and (3) that one or more persons interested in the distribution of assets were persons over whom the English court could exercise jurisdiction.’

WLR Daily, 20th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Winder and others) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2014 in benefits, council tax, domicile, law reports, local government, news, ultra vires by sally

Regina (Winder and others) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 349

‘The provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 did not empower a billing authority for an area to impose a condition of residence on individuals seeking to utilise a council tax reduction scheme created under section 13A(2) of the Act.’

WLR Daily, 30th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk