Cases Archive

1st Nov 2012

McRoberts v McRoberts

Consideration of the jurisdiction of the Court under section 281(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“section 281(5)”) to release a bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt arising under any order made in family proceedings (as defined in section 281(8))

22nd Oct 2012

Re M (Fact-Finding Hearing: Burden of Proof) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580; [2013] 2 FLR 874

Fact-finding hearing – Appeal – No explanation for injuries to child – Judge concluded parents possible perpetrators – Whether the local authority had discharged the burden of proof

16th Oct 2012 | Jordans

X v Y & Z Police Force, A, B and C (By their Children’s Guardian) [2013] 1 FLR 1277; [2012] EWHC 2939 (Fam)

Police joined as party in child abduction case where client was an undercover police officer.

10th Oct 2012

SB v A Local Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 1269

Appeal by the father against findings of fact of a sexual nature made in a three-week trial. Appeal dismissed.

21st Sep 2012

Re A (Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204; [2013] 1 FLR 919

Disclosure — Serious sexual abuse allegations against the father — Contact with child suspended — Accuser suffered poor mental and physical health — Whether the balance fell in favour of disclosure

31st May 2012 | Bailii

A Local Authority v DS [2012] EWHC 1442 (Fam)

President’s judgment concerning delay and ultimate refusal by the LSC to grant prior authority for the instruction of an independent social worker to perform a parenting and risk assessment of parents. The President provides Guidance on seeking prior authority from the LSC for instructing an expert witness in family proceedings.

14th Mar 2012

Re S (A Child) [2012] UKSC 10

Further consideration of Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention 1980 in case where client resisting return of a toddler to Australia had a pre-existing anxiety condition and Applicant had admitted domestic abuse.

3rd Feb 2012

VC v GC (Jurisdiction: Brussels II Revised Art 12) [2012] EWHC 1246 (Fam)

The family lived in France. The mother (who was English) returned to England with the child with the father’s consent. The mother and father issued proceedings in England and France respectively — the question for determination was: which country was seised of the matter? Consideration was given as to which country was best placed to determine welfare issues