Re A (a child) (wardship: habitual residence) Fam Div 21.12.06

Emphasising the court’s need to take a fact based approach to the question of habitual residence it was held that a child, born in the United Kingdom but who had resided with his father in Kurdistan between the ages of 19 months and four years, could not properly be said to have been habitually resident within the jurisdiction at the commencement of wardship proceedings.

J (children) (residence order: removal outside jurisdiction) CA 19.12.06
The CA upheld the decision of a trial judge in dealing with cross applications for residence from a mother and father (who also sought to remove the children to Bulgaria) to grant the father leave to remove children from Bulgaria to live with him there.

C v C and others Fam Div 19.12.06
It was declared that the English court should exercise jurisdiction in relation to a father’s applications for residence and contact. The case was remitted to the county court and the Spanish court invited to decline jurisdiction in relation to those matters.

R (a child) (special guardianship order) CA 20.12.06

The CA held that a person who required the permission of the court to make an application for a special guardianship order could neither make an application for such an order nor give notice of his intention to do so unless and until he had obtained the court’s permission to make the application.

Re H (children) (care proceedings and criminal proceedings) CA 19.12.06

The CA held that in care proceedings brought after a mother’s partner had been charged with sexual offences involving children, the judge’s decision to adjourn the care proceedings pending the criminal proceedings had been a case management decision and not been plainly wrong in the circumstances.

N v N Fam Div 19.12.06

A husband’s appeal against the variation of a nominal periodical payments order on the basis that the district judge had erred in law was dismissed. Contrary to the husband's argument no condition precedent to such a variation could not be found in the statutory provisions or authorities relating to them and therefore the district judge had not erred in law.

L and another v Reading Borough Council and others QBD 13.12.06

An application by a father to amend particulars of claim to plead breaches of the ‘direct’ duty of care owed to him by the first and second defendant local authorities was allowed. It was held to be sufficiently arguable that the relevant authority owed the father a direct duty of care.

Bajrami v Albania (App No 35853/04) (ECtHR) 12.12.06

The European Court of Human Rights awarded an applicant €15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary loss by where a valid custody judgment in their favour was not enforced for approximately two years. As no satisfactory explanation had been put forward to justify those delays it was held there had been a violation of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

H v L and another Fam Div 07.12.06

The Attorney-General exceptionally agreed to a request by the judge in a pre-hearing review to provide an advocate to the court for the purpose of cross-examining the vulnerable 20 year old daughter in relation to allegations of sexual abuse by a father acting in person in contact and PR applications in respect of her younger siblings.

Youanas v Elkomos CA 07.12.06

The CA held that a judge had had no basis for finding that an agreement to settle out of court made by a husband and wife in the course of enforcement proceedings in respect of a lump sum order had been obtained by means of improper pressure on the wife by the husband. An order made by the judge pursuant to s 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was therefore set aside.

M v M CA 06.12.06
CA upheld a judge’s decision to allow a wife to reject her husband’s offer to purchase the former matrimonial home in favour of an offer from a developer. Adverse findings having been made in respect of the husband during the ancillary relief proceedings the wife was entitled to choose the security of the developer’s offer.