Re K, L & M (children) (child arrangement orders)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that owing to the father's reported behaviour it was in the three boys' best interests not to have any face to face contact with him until he made changes to his behaviour. Face to face contact included Face Time and Skype. Contact was to be limited to telephone contact for one hour and further an order was made under of the Children Act 1989 regarding further applications by the father.

Re FM (a child)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal by a mother against a special guardianship order in respect of her son, made in favour of her sister and brother in law, held that, in the circumstances of the case, the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that the order had been a necessary and proportionate interference with family rights to ensure that the son's welfare needs were met.

Re V (European Maintenance Regulation)

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division declined to stay or dismiss the wife's application for maintenance, including interim relief, pursuant to s27 of the in circumstances where the husband had, a few months previously, lodged a writ for divorce in Scotland. The Scottish court had not been seised of maintenance at the date upon which the wife had issued her application and the present court had priority.

Southwark London Borough v KA and others (Capacity to Marry)

Mental health Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that following an assessment of the patient the presumption that the patient had the capacity to marry and engage in sexual relations as defined under the had not been displaced.

Besharova v Berezovsky

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the wife's appeal in respect of the construction of a consent order, by which her claim for financial remedy orders against her former husband was compromised, held that the judge had been correct to have rejected the wife's case on construction and to have granted the declaration she had.

BP v DP (Children: Habitual Residence)

Minor Custody. In a case under concerning an application by a mother under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 for the summary return of her children from the United Kingdom to Australia, the Family Division held that an agreement of the mother to allow the children to come and live in England with the father for a period of time had necessarily to have imported into it a quality of residence that in the circumstances of the present case, the retention of the children by the father in the jurisdiction beyond the agreed date could not be considered to have been a 'wrongful retention' for the purposes of engaging art 12 of the Hague Convention. On that basis alone, the mother's application for the summary return of the children to Australia would be dismissed.

BD v FD

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division held in the wife's case for financial remedy that an award of 8.8m was fair having regard to all the relevant factors. In so deciding, it refused to give effect to the wife's submission that she was in fact entitled to an award of 29m.

CN and another v Poole Borough Council

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimants appeal against the strike out of their case in negligence against the local authority on the basis that no claim could be brought in common law against a local authority which was negligent in the performance of its duties towards children living in its area who were at a foreseeable risk of harm. The court held that case law since the meant that such a claim could in principle be brought.

Robertson v Robertson

Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division ruled on the wife's application for financial remedies after divorce, in circumstances where the husband already owned before the cohabitation and marriage publicly quoted shares in a company of which he was a co-founder and the chief executive officer. In the exercise of broad judicial discretion, the only fair way to treat the remaining pre-existing shares (and three investment properties) was to treat them as to half as the personal non-matrimonial property of the husband, and as to half as the matrimonial property of the parties to be evenly shared.

Re JL and AO (Babies relinquished for adoption)

Adoption Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, which were heard together as they raised common issues, involving babies born to mothers from Eastern Europe, but relinquished at birth for adoption in the United Kingdom. Among other things, the court considered what jurisdiction the court had to have to make orders facilitating such placements and what factors had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures that should be followed.