*Alireza v Radwan and others

Divorce Appeal. Although a prospective inheritance which had the certainty brought to it by the laws of forced heirship, was capable of being a 'financial resource' when considering matters under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the judge had been in error giving the wife a time-limited occupational interest in two flats, on that basis. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had lost sight of her own finding that there were very substantial liquid funds available within the family arrangement (to which the husband had an absolute right) together with his substantial earning capacity and 1.6m in funds outside the family arrangement.

Mazhar v Lord Chancellor

Human rights Right to liberty and security. There was nothing in the (the ), taken together either with the CPR or the FPR, that provided a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. The Family Division further held that the had not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity and the Crown was not to be held vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary.

Re E-R (Child Arrangements Order No.2: Costs)

Family proceedings Costs. The father's specific and deliberate breach of a child arrangements order had been serious, unreasonable, and reprehensible. The Family Division held that the circumstances justified a costs order being made against the father. Accordingly, the court proposed to direct that the father should contribute 15,000 towards the applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Zimina v Zimin

Divorce Financial provision. The husband's application to set aside an order made by the English courts under the was allowed, where another order had been made earlier by the Russian court. Following an evaluation of all the relevant factors, the proper conclusion ought to have been that it had not been appropriate for the English court to make the order.

A Local Authority v AMcC and others

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. Care orders were made for boys aged 13 and 15, as remaining in their present residential care was in their welfare best interests. The Family Division further held that, the presumption of capacity of their nearly 18-year-old brother had not been rebutted, but an injunction would be made, not compelling him to live in any particular place, but restraining him from living at his mother's home until the question of capacity and jurisdiction were reconsidered.

A Local Authority v T (Mother) and others (Alere Toxicology and others intervening)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. A supervision order concerning eight-month-old baby would be made in the applicant local authority's favour for 12 months, the mother having been found to have used cocaine at a relatively low and infrequent level during the latter part of 2015 and during 2016, but not recently. The Family Court also gave suggestions as to how the presentation of reports might be developed so as to be most useful to those working in the field of family justice.

FE v MR and others

Child Practice. The circumstances of the present case supported a request to the Spanish court under European Community Regulation2201-2003 art15 for the transfer of proceedings concerning two children who were habitually resident in England. A transfer of the case could only take place if the Spanish court, as the court of the Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, concluded that the three criteria of art15 were satisfied. Ultimately, the decision rested with the Spanish court.

S v S

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings concerning a wealthy Russian family, the welfare of two children, who currently lived with their mother in England, was better served by their move to Switzerland to live with their father. So ruled the Family Division, in allowing the father's application to remove the children to live with him in Switzerland, subject to certain conditions, including a child arrangements' order for them to live with both parents there, with funding for the mother to set up a home in that country. The father was also ordered to pay 150,000 towards the mother's costs.

Hart v Hart

Divorce Financial provision. Having set out the proper approach to non-matrimonial property when determining a financial remedy claim by application of the sharing principle, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the wife's appeal. The judge had not been required to award the wife a half share because he had been unable to carry out a formulaic approach, in part, because he had been unable to ascertain the true value of the husband's pre-marital wealth, and he had not erred by having awarded her his needs calculation, when all his other calculations had been for higher amounts.

FE v YE (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division provided guidance on where an asylum claim would halt an application under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The father had applied, pursuant to the Convention, for the return of his two children from the United Kingdom to Israel. Days prior to the present proceedings, the subject children had been refused asylum and were subsequently ordered to be returned to Israel. However, the order would not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation of the decision on the mother and children's appeal against the refusal of the grant of asylum.