Cases Archive

Following an application by the mother to relocate to Poland (from London), the Judge undertook a finely balanced and holistic exercise when comparing the options available to the court. Whilst case law is clear that there is no presumption in favour of the relocating parent, the Judge concluded that the scales weighed in favour of the mother and child relocating.

The case was of particular significance as it was published against a paucity of judgments regarding relocation. The Judge helpfully summarised the relevant legal principles. The significance of this case may evolve as it is currently subject of an appeal.

Fact-finding hearing at the High Court, at which serious findings were made of rape and threats to kill. Despite the father denying each and every allegation, following lengthy cross-examination, all allegations were proved. The court found that the father had created aliases, from which he had made threats to the mother, her family, her legal team, court staff and members of the judiciary.

The case is significant, not least because of the interesting factual matrix, but because the judgment deals with the complexity of navigating allegations of abuse with a perpetrator who suffers from severe mental health difficulties.

Tatiana recently appeared in the High Court, representing the mother at final hearing following the fact-finding hearing in May 2024. The court was faced with a complex factual matrix and had to grapple with the difficult question of whether the father should be stripped on his parental responsibility. The Judge considered the relevant statute and case law in respect of the termination of parental responsibility and was persuaded to terminate the father’s parental responsibility. The court made a final child arrangements order for no contact between the child and father, and a s91(14) barring order until the child reaches 16 years of age.

Michael (leading Tom Haggie) was wholly successful in persuading the Court of Appeal in Faraj v Ahmad and IIB Group Holdings WLL, to make the first known instance of an unless order or Hadkinson order being made on an appeal of a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO). The case underscores the courts’ willingness to ensure equality of arms in financial remedy litigation, even at the appellate level.

The application concerned the setting aside of decree nisi arising from a bigamous marriage.

David represented a wife declined to move out of the family home following an order for sale at the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings. The unusual aspect was that the final order included an undertaking given by the wife that she would move out even if the property were not yet sold and the lump sum ordered not yet paid to her. The husband applied to enforce the undertaking; the wife argued that, as events turned out, she had nowhere else to go and should be released from her undertaking pending sale. The question was whether she should be released and, if not, whether a committal order could or should be made against her.

David represented a father of children with various learning and other difficulties, in a case centring on whether adequate specialist support could be provided to the parents to care for the children.

David represented a mother of older children in proceedings where significant issues were raised as to her ability to perceive and manage risks to the children’s safety. The live issues were whether the children should remain with the mother; if not, the amount of contact the children should have with her and each other; and arrangements for family therapy unavailable on the NHS.