Family Court Reports

Andy Hill, Head of Legal Publishing

November 8, 2019

The latest update to Family Court Reports is now live for subscribers. This update includes:

E (through her children’s guardian) & Anor v a mother & anor, [2019] 3 FCR 417

Appeal – Care proceedings – Interim decision – Adoption care plan rejected in favour of exploring possible rehabilitation to parents – Whether appeal should wait until final hearing.

Care proceedings – Appeal – Interim decision – Adoption care plan rejected in favour of exploring possible rehabilitation to parents – Whether appeal should wait until final hearing.

Care proceedings – Welfare – Adoption care plan rejected in favour of exploring possible rehabilitation to parents – Drug tests showing parents lying in oral evidence – Evidence of ongoing domestic violence – Professional guidelines for social workers and guardians – Timescale for exploring rehabilitation and impact on child’s future.

Re F (a child) (fact-finding appeal), [2019] 3 FCR 435

Care proceedings – Fact-finding – Medical evidence – Process of gathering from different experts – Possibility of using summary of effect of evidence – Evidence from treating clinician – Different focus from expert evidence – Degree to which requirements of Pt 25 applied – Evidence from treating clinician could be accepted in preference of that from instructed experts but the difference between treating clinician and instructed expert had to be taken into account.

Gladwell v Gladwell, [2019] 3 FCR 461

Enforcement – Financial remedies – Application for writ of control – Whether effected transfer from Family Court to High Court – Seizure of goods – Whether Family Court had power to issue effective enforcement measures – Interplay between FPR rr 33.4 and 29(17)(3) and (4).

Financial remedies – Enforcement – Application for writ of control – Whether effected transfer from Family Court to High Court – Seizure of goods – Whether Family Court had power to issue effective enforcement measures – Interplay between FPR rr 33.4 and 29(17)(3) and (4).

Practice and procedure – Family Court – Application for writ of control – Whether effected transfer to High Court – Seizure of goods – Whether Family Court had power to issue effective enforcement measures – Interplay between FPR rr 33.4 and 29(17)(3) and (4).

RJ v Tigipko (nos 1 and 2), [2019] 3 FCR 470

Abduction – Practice and procedure – Application to foreign court under 1996 Hague Convention rather than 1980 Hague Convention – Loss of relevant defences – Probity and competence of foreign court.

Abduction – Publicity – Naming parties to proceedings to encourage compliance with return orders – Whether issue concerning children’s upbringing – Whether paramountcy principle applied – Whether publicity available as aid to enforcement.

Contempt – Publicity – Redaction of passages in contemplation of criminal proceedings – Whether s 11 of Contempt of Court Act 1981 applied – Whether s 4 of 1981 Act applied.

Publicity – Abduction – Naming parties to proceedings to encourage compliance with return orders – Whether issue concerning children’s upbringing – Whether paramountcy principle applied – Whether publicity available as aid to enforcement.

Publicity – Contempt – Redaction of passages in contemplation of criminal proceedings – Whether s 11 of Contempt of Court Act 1981 applied – Whether s 4 of 1981 Act applied.

RJ v Tigipko & Ors (no 3), [2019] 3 FCR 496

Abduction – Enforcement – Jurisdiction to make anti-suit injunctions – Application for order against only one of parties – Directions – Nature of indirect contact – Discharging a party whose refusal to engage was causing problems with enforcement – Benefits of mediation.

Enforcement – Abduction – Jurisdiction to make anti-suit injunctions – Application for order against only one of parties – Directions – Nature of indirect contact – Discharging a party whose refusal to engage was causing problems with enforcement – Benefits of mediation.

Jurisdiction – Enforcement – Abduction – Anti-suit injunctions.

Timokhina v Timokhin, [2019] 3 FCR 503

Costs – Indemnity costs – Whether fees reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount – Costs of hearing solely relating to summary assessment and whether costs to be on standard or indemnity basis – Whether leading counsel justified – Size of brief fees.

Costs – Jurisdiction – Retrospective order – No order for costs originally – Proper interpretation of CPR 44.10(1)(a) – Whether left court with residual discretion to award costs.

Costs – Summary assessment – Whether sufficient information available – General rule.

Jurisdiction – Costs – Retrospective order – No order for costs originally – Proper interpretation of CPR 44.10(1)(a) – Whether left court with residual discretion to award costs.