Monday, March 21, 2016

News Essentials: 21st March 2016


A brief summary of the essential family law news and cases from the last week:

NEWS
A bad budget for children, say children’s charities
Concerns that budget does not address child poverty. Full story: Family Law Week.

FPR strike-out provision amended from 6th April 2016
Further amendments to The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2016 relate to attachment of earnings, charging and stop orders. Full story: Family Law Week.

MoJ set to impose 34% divorce fee hike next Monday
The Ministry of Justice has slipped out an announcement of a 34% hike in divorce fees expected to take effect next Monday, despite strong opposition from family lawyers. Full story: Law Society Gazette.

CASES
S v J & Ors [2016] EWHC 586 (Fam) (14 March 2016)
Application by former cohabitee for declarations as to the ownership of four properties in which either or both parties had an interest during their former relationship. Full report: Bailii.

C v V [2016] EWHC 559 (Fam) (15 March 2016)
Hague wrongful retention case brought by a mother living in Spain against a father living in England. Full report: Bailii.

Hammerton v. The United Kingdom - 6287/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section)) [2016] ECHR 272 (17 March 2016)
Claim by applicant alleging that his committal to prison for civil contempt, and the subsequent civil proceedings by which he sought to obtain redress, violated his rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Full report: Bailii.

BD v FD (No 2) [2016] EWHC 594 (Fam) (17 March 2016)
Judgment determining wife's financial remedy application, in case where there was a substantial disparity between the parties' assessment of the wife's needs. Full report: Family Law.

*      *      *

For more news, see here.

For more cases, see here.

To subscribe to the Family Lore Focus free weekly Newsletter (which includes links to all of the week's top family law news stories, cases, articles and blog posts), go here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.