Re T (a child) (adoption order)

Adoption Practice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set aside an adoption order and ordered that the matter be re-tried, in circumstances where a report prepared by the local authority as part of the adoption proceedings had not been provided to the appellant mother who wished to oppose the adoption.

Hutchings-Whelan v Hutchings

Practice Ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant husband's appeal against a lump sum payment ordered to the claimant wife subsequent to an ancillary relief order, on the ground that, in the circumstances, the judge had not erred in his calculation of the amount due.

Kremen v Agrest (No 11) (Financial Remedy: Non-disclosure: Post-Nuptial Agreement)

Family proceedings Ancillary relief. The Family Division, in considering the claimant wife's application for financial orders under of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, held that the defendant husband had been guilty of material non-disclosure, the parties' post-nuptial agreement should be disregarded and that having regard to the s25 of the and the distributive principles of needs and sharing the appropriate award was 12.5m of which the maintenance or need component made up 8.3m.

Re Q (a child: adoption)

Adoption Mother's application for adoption order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal against the judge's decision to refuse his application for a residence order for his daughter, and to make an adoption order instead, held that the judge had applied the correct legal test and had given proper regard to all relevant factual considerations.

*V v V

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, in allowing the husband's appeal against a decision not to award a charge back on the lump sum awarded to the wife, held that the judge had erred in the weight she gave to a marriage settlement and that a 33.3% charge back should have been made on the lump sum.

SM v Local Authority

Practice Disclosure and inspection of documents. The Administrative Court held that it was not well placed to determine the claimant's claim for disclosure pursuant to ss7 and 35 of the and, therefore, decided that the claim should be transferred to the relevant county court which was already seized of the claimant's family law proceedings and, accordingly, in a much better position to determine the claim.

R v J

Criminal evidence Hearsay. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction of cruelty to a child, held that the admission of hearsay evidence had not rendered the conviction unsafe.

*Glen Dimplex Home Appliances Ltd v Smith and others

Fraud Breach of trust. Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): In an application by the claimant for summary judgment in relation to claims for dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and tracing against, inter alia, a former employee, it was held that the defendants had no real prospect of succeeding in their defence to certain of the claims, but that the dishonest assistance and knowing receipt claims against the third defendant would have to go to trial.

NG v SG (appeal: non-disclosure)

Family proceedings Disclosure of documents. In considering an appeal against the variation of a maintenance order, the Family Division, held that, in circumstances where the district judge had concluded that the husband was guilty of sustained non-disclosure, the district judge had erred in principle and his discretion had been miscarried.

*Dalriada Trustees Ltd v Faulds and others

Pension Pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claimants trustee's claim that reciprocal payments made by the original trustees of the occupational pension schemes were unauthorised member payments as defined by s160(2) of the held that the payments fell within the scope of s173 of the Act and were, accordingly, invalid.