Monday, November 28, 2016

News Essentials: 28th November 2016


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

NEWS
Litigant in person’s ‘misconceived’ applications an abuse of process
Munby J rejects serial litigant’s ‘scurrilous’ allegations. Full story: Solicitors Journal. See Akester v Fitzgerald, below.

Law Society practice note: Court duty scheme for private law family clients
The Law Society has issued a practice note for family practitioners intending to set up or provide advice at a court duty scheme for private law family cases. Full story: Family Law.

Court of Appeal gives important judgment about witnesses’ rights to appeal in family proceedings
Witnesses subject of adverse judicial findings may challenge judge’s findings on appeal. Full story: Family Law Week. See Re W (A Child).

CASES
Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2016] EWHC 3000 (Fam) (23 November 2016)
Rehearing of wife's financial remedy application, the previous final order having been set aside by because of the husband's non-disclosure in respect of his interest in two trusts. Full report: Bailii.

P (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1127 (28 July 2016)
Application for permission to appeal by mother against orders refusing her application for contact and under section 91(14) Children Act 1989. Full report: Family Law Week.

Akester v Fitzgerald [2016] EWHC 2961 (Fam) (21 November 2016)
Judgment dealing with application by litigant in person, seeking to stay execution of an order made in the course of financial remedy proceedings. 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.