Immigration Leave to remain. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) refusing permission to appeal the refusal of her application to extend her discretionary leave to remain as it could not be said that the judge's conclusion had not been open to him on the evidence or had been disproportionate.
Practice Family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in refusing to allow allegations of sexual abuse against a father to continue following a late stance taken by the mother that she would give evidence. The judge had already determined that the father would not have received a fair trial without the mother's evidence, and accordingly a finding that it would not have been fair for the mother to advance evidence had not been correct. The trial should have been allowed to continue.
Evidence Admissibility. In an appeal against an order that documents obtained pursuant to s7 of the be disclosed in family proceedings, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that unless the requested country had consented to its wider use, s 9(2) of the 2003 Act prohibited the use of evidence for any purpose other than that specified in the request without the consent of the requested authority, even where those documents had already been properly put into the public domain.
Divorce Practice. The Family Division, in allowing the wife's appeal, held that she was entitled to ask the court to set aside an order for financial provision which had been reached between the husband and wife by consent in circumstances where the husband's non-disclosure meant there was a strong possibility that the court would have arrived at a significantly different result.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal against placement orders made in respect of two of her seven children.
Family proceedings Order in family proceedings. In an appeal against a care order in circumstances where the parents contended that a wardship order would have been more appropriate, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that nothing in of the Children Act 1989 prevented the court from making an order in wardship where the child was already in voluntary accommodation pursuant to s 20 of that Act.
Divorce Ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing a husband's appeal, held that the ceremony of marriage which the parties had gone through could never have achieved the status even of a void marriage in English law. Accordingly, there could not be an application under of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father and paternal grandmother's appeal, held that a judge had not erred in making a placement order instead of a special guardianship order because the latter had not been raised as an alternative, and, further, he had not erred in refusing to grant a contact order because that had not been forcefully argued for.
Children and young persons Court proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division granted the claimant child's application for order prohibiting the reporting of the instant proceedings in a newspaper or other media as it was necessary that there should be no reporting of the claimant's name, or other means of identification of the claimant, in order to prevent the risk of the claimant becoming the victim of those who would attempt to misuse the funds which the claimant had been awarded as compensation for injuries.
Child Protection. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in the limits he imposed upon the redaction of information contained in a draft executive summary prepared in the pursuit of a serious case review following serious injuries caused to a child by its parent. The judge had failed to grapple with the fundamental problem that the trial of the parent had been publicised and details in the executive summary revealed information that had not been publicised, and, accordingly, a more stringent redaction of the executive summary had been required to protect the interests of the child's siblings and their family.