Monday, October 10, 2016

News Essentials: 10th October 2016


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

NEWS
Advocate told off for late service on litigant in person
Late service of documents further weakens the position of LiPs, says Jackson J. Full story: Solicitors Journal. See Re B, below.

New and amended family forms from 3 October 2016
Three new and five amended forms should be used from 3 October 2016. Full story: Family Law Hub.

The Transparency Project today launches its Family Court Reporting Watch project
Family Court Reporting Watch is a new venture set up by the Transparency Project, made possible by funding from the Legal Education Foundation. Full story: Family Law.

CASES
X, Y And Z (Children) (Retrospective Leave To Remove From the Jurisdiction) [2016] EWHC 2439 (Fam) (31 August 2016)
Application by mother for permission to retain children in Spain, where they have lived since about March 2013. Full report: Bailii.

K (Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 931 (05 October 2016)
Appeal against an order permitting the mother of a 10 year old girl to take her to live permanently in the Republic of Ireland. Appeal dismissed. Full report: Bailii.

B (Litigants In Person: Timely Service of Documents), Re [2016] EWHC 2365 (Fam) (30 September 2016)
Judgment dealing with issue of late service of documents upon non-English-speaking litigant in person. Full report: Bailii.

Alcott (No. 2) [2016] EWHC 2414 (Fam) (29 September 2016)
Further judgment in application by father for summary return of child to Australia, dealing with issue of reporting. Full report: Bailii.

Alcott (No. 1) [2016] EWHC 2413 (Fam) (27 September 2016)
Application by father for summary return of child to Australia. Full report: Bailii.

*      *      *
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.