Davies v Davies

Divorce Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a husband's appeal against an award of 2.2m to the wife. The court found that, although the judge had erred in respect of the value of the husband's business, overall the award had achieved fairness between the parties.

*Re Y (Children) (Special guardianship: responsible local authority)

Minor Guardianship. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in hearing an appeal against a declaration that the appellant local authority had responsibility for two children the subject of a proposed special guardianship order, clarified the principles to be applied in determining which local authority had responsibility in circumstances where an 'out of area' placement took place.

R (on the application of AN (a child) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Asylum seeker. Having considered the relevant legal safeguards that were in place to ensure protection for unaccompanied children who arrive in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the appeal by two unaccompanied Afghanistan children against a decision by the Administrative Court that their being fingerprinted and interviewed whilst in detention had been lawful, and that reliance could be placed on those interviews.

J Council v GU (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection approved an agreed final order requiring the patient to live at a care home. The court held that, in the circumstances, the interferences with G's private life, including monitoring of his correspondence and telephone calls, were in compliance with art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Re E (children) (Relocation: removal from jurisdiction)

Child Practice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against permission for the mother to relocate to America with their two children in circumstances where the judge had rejected the CAFCASS officer's report because she had failed to consider the impact of refusal on the mother.

*B v A

Family proceedings Costs. The Family Division, inter alia, made a wasted costs order against the father's solicitors for 18,000, in circumstances where there had been a number of serious and inexcusable failures by the father and his legal advisers, and the court to comply with the principles and procedures relating to the making and granting of without relief notice.

S v T

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division gave permission for a Russian mother to relocate to Russia with the parties child, despite objections from the English father. The court was satisfied that the child's welfare would be promoted by the move.

O and another v Maahanmuuttovirasto and another case

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary reference in two cases concerning the interpretation of art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The references had been made in proceedings, first, between Mr O and Ms S, who were third country nationals, and the Finnish Immigration Office (Case ) and, secondly, between the Finnish Immigration Office and Ms L, also a third country national (Case ), concerning the rejection of their applications for residence permits on the basis of family reunification.

*Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Dittrich

European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2000-78 78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation), in disputes between federal public servants and Germany concerning the reimbursement of medical expenses of their civil partners, or whether account was to be taken of such civil partners for the purposes of the assistance granted to federal public servants in the event of illness.

Re O (a child) (residence)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal against a judge's decision to allow the mother's application for permission to relocate to Southern Ireland with their child, rejected the father's criticisms of the judge's decision and held that fresh evidence about the mother's financial position would not have resulted in the judge reaching a different conclusion.