Monday, May 21, 2018

News Essentials: 21st May 2018


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

NEWS
Tandem model of child representation in pubic law proceedings is working well, finds study
Guidance as to the respective roles of solicitor and guardian may be beneficial. Full story: Family Law Week.

Family Justice Research Bulletin 7
A summary of the findings of recent research relevant to family justice. Full story: Ministry of Justice.

President of the Family Division agrees protocol on communicating with UK Visas and Immigration in Family Proceedings
Protocol agreed between the President of the Family Division and the Home Office issued on 16 May 2018. Full story: Family Law.

Practice Guidance: Standard financial and enforcement orders (addendum no 2)
On 30 November 2017 I issued ‘Practice Guidance: Standard financial and enforcement orders’. Since then I have received a handful of representations about some of the paragraphs in these orders. In the light of them I have decided to issue the following amendments. Full story: Family Law.

CASES
LKH v TQA AL Z (Interim maintenance and costs funding) [2018] EWHC 1214 (Fam) (19 April 2018)
Application by a wife and mother for interim periodical payments in the context of proceedings under Part III of the 1984 Act after a foreign divorce. Full report: Bailii.

Villiers v Villiers [2018] EWCA Civ 1120 (17 May 2018)
Appeal by husband against order made on wife's s27 MCA 1973 application, considering issue of whether England or Scotland has jurisdiction. Full report: Bailii.

G v G & Anor [2018] EWHC 1100 (Fam) (04 May 2018)
Application by the police to delay service of a Cafcass report in a child abduction case, pending investigation of allegations that father had abused one of the children. Full report: Bailii.

Ahmad v Wood & Anor [2018] EWHC 996 (QB) (11 May 2018)
In this financial remedy case, the Claimant showed that there was sufficient evidence to show that further material should have been before the District Judge and that there was a substantial chance that such material would have led to a materially different order. In respect of his damages claim, the court ruled that the alleged consequential losses set out in the Particulars of Claim were outside the scope of the Defendants' duty and as such are irrecoverable; the damages claim would therefore need to be reformulated. Full report: Bailii, via Family Law Hub.

Tish & Ors v Olley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1069 (Ch) (09 May 2018)
The Claimants brought a claim under the Inheritance Act against the executors of their late father that their father, who had remarried since divorcing their mother, intended that following his death his estate should take over responsibility for making payments to them equivalent to those set out in the ancillary relief Order in 2007. Full report: Bailii, via Family Law Hub.

*      *      *
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.