The February issue of the Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
Case Summaries
Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2025] EWCA Civ 2 (13 January 2025) – There is no inherent jurisdiction in the High Court to set aside or revoke an adoption order, save on appeal against the original order to the appropriate appellate court.
The Father v Worcestershire County Council [2025] UKSC 1 (29 January 2025) – A father was not entitled to challenge by writ of habeas corpus a care order made on his child, nor to challenge such an order by judicial review.
HA v EN [2025] EWHC 48 (Fam) (6 January 2025), Richard Todd KC as a High Court judge – W’s application for maintenance pending suit (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), s 22: Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS)) and legal services payment order (MCA 1973, s 22ZA: Legal Services Payment Order). Order made and appropriate parts of the orders charged on the parties former matrimonial home under Solicitors Act 1974, s 73 (ie the solicitor’s statutory charge on property recovered through the solicitors’ instrumentality).
PM v RM [2025] EWFC 11 (20 January 2025) Justin Warshaw KC as a High Court judge – W’s application for MPS (MCA 1973, s 22) and LSPO (MCA 1973, s 22ZA) orders allowed. Injunction against a second respondent ie trustees of A Trust, prohibiting them from dealing with the family home, refused.
Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42 (24 January 2025) – A judge, in this case a judge of the Family Division, has no jurisdiction to anonymise the names of judges at earlier stages of children proceedings; and in the absence of any application by three judges to seek anonymisation (per Sir Geoffrey Vos MR).
Potanina: Supreme Court and putting right overseas divorce procedure
In Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3, [2024] AC 1063, [2024] 1 FLR 1040 (31 January 2024) the Supreme Court reviewed procedure in a narrow range of family proceedings; and in doing so the Court commented on – and put right were there any doubt on the matter – the much wider procedural issue of procedure where a court order has been made without notice to the intended respondent to it.
Here a spouse applicant (the wife in this case: A) was seeking permission to proceed under Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), Pt 3 (‘financial relief after an overseas divorce’). By following procedural principles outlined by the Supreme Court in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, [2010] 1 AC 628 and in Family Proceedings Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), r 8.25 had been giving permission to an applicant (most often a wife: A); without notice to the respondent (R) and doing so in a way which was ‘unlawful’, as Potanina confirmed. The article explains why the MFPA 1984, Pt 3 procedure prior to Potanina was wrong and set out the correct procedure under FPR 2010, r 8.25 and in accordance with well-worn procedures under FPR 2010, rr 18.10 and 18.11. ‘What is required is [for judges] to apply the rules as they stand and not to disregard them’ said Lord Leggatt at [84].