Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Family - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 49 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 In Re CH (family proceedings: court bundles); FD 2000 - [2000] 2 FCR 193
 
Khreino v Khreino [2000] 1 FCR 75
2000
CA
Thorpe LJ, Mummery LJ
Family, Litigation Practice, Human Rights
The court heard a renewed application for leave to appeal. A single Lord Justice had directed that any oral renewal of the application for permission should be heard by a court of two, of which he was to be a member. Objection was taken to him being a member of the court, having already given his opnion on the papers. Held: The renewed application could by heard by a court including the judge who had rejected the original request on the papers.
Thorpe LJ: "The manifest intention of the practice direction is to enable applications for permission to be dealt with by a single judge of the court on paper in much the same way as the application for permission is dealt with by the trial judge on paper. It is important that the single Lord Justice should have a profound understanding of the case and of the arguments advanced in support of the application for permission. To ensure that he receives such papers as would be conventionally before the court at an oral hearing under the former practice he also now has the advantage of a full skeleton argument supporting the application for permission. Therefore his refusal on paper is a considered and reasoned refusal after full consideration of all relevant material, including the applicant's detailed submissions. In the majority of cases it is intended to be the end of the application for permission unless the single Lord Justice has fallen into manifest error or unless there has been some unexpected subsequent development. So it seems to me that the right to require a subsequent oral hearing has a real purpose and function in the minority of cases. Of course the importance that we attach to oral argument has always been a distinguishing characteristic of our forensic system. But ordinarily there must be more than that to justify renewal. Perhaps on further consideration the advocate has perceived a submission not previously advanced. There might also be circumstances in which subsequent to the signing of the provisional refusal there was some unexpected development in relation to the appeal or some development of the relevant precedent law."
Mummery LJ: "The course taken could not possibly be regarded as a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first sentence of that Article provides:
'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'
The procedure laid down is that applications for permission to appeal are made ex parte and they are considered on paper. The rules require that, in support of the application for permission to appeal, the party seeking to appeal will submit a skeleton argument. That sets out all the points which he would wish to pursue on the appeal. The single Lord Justice who considers it is able to form a view whether or not the appeal on those grounds has a real prospect of success. There has therefore been a fair hearing, within a reasonable time of an ex parte application. That hearing was before an independent and impartial tribunal. An oral hearing was requested. This oral hearing is in public. There is no breach of any common law principle of procedural fairness which, like Article 6, requires that a hearing takes place before an unbiased tribunal or court. There is no requirement that every application shall receive an oral hearing. It is appropriate that an ex parte application for permission to appeal should be considered initially as a paper application. Mr Turner [counsel making the application] says that if the Lord Justice who has indicated that he is minded to refuse and gives reasons for it sits on the oral hearing that renders the oral hearing pointless, because it is taking place before a judge who has already made up his mind. That is a misunderstanding of the procedure. The Lord Justice who has indicated that he is minded to refuse leave to appeal is obliged to consider the matter at the oral hearing in the light of any further points. The oral hearing is not an appeal from an earlier decision. These points may range from updating the court on matters which have occurred since the application was considered in July; drawing the court's attention to new authorities which had not been discovered at the time of submitting the skeleton argument or had not been decided and reported at that time. The oral hearing also provides an occasion for dealing with errors and omissions in the reasons stated in the minded to refuse letter. The oral hearing is not pointless.
I agree with my Lord as to the circumstances in which an application for an oral hearing is conducted after the matter has been fully considered on a paper application. Mr Turner's objection to the propriety or validity of the constitution of this court should be rejected."
1 Citers



 
 El Fadl v El Fadl; FD 2000 - [2000] 1 FLR 175
 
A v A, B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701
2000
FD
Charles J
Family
'the court is not a 'common informer'.
1 Citers


 
Smith v Smith [2000] 3 FCR 374
2000
FD
Thorpe J
Family
Ancillary relief
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Arresting Officer: Attendance) Times, 19 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000
19 Jan 2000
FD

Family, Contempt of Court
The direction deals with the circumstances in which the officer who makes an arrest in family proceedings for the breach of a non-molestation or similar order should be asked to attend court personally on the hearing regarding that breach. Unless the circumstances of the arrest itself appeared to be an issue, or unless the officer could give evidence as a witness to the circumstances leading up to the arrest, the officer need not normally be called.
Family Law Act 1996 47(7)

 
G v G [2000] EWCA Civ 3010
1 Feb 2000
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) Times, 22 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 737; [2000] 1 FLR 536
10 Mar 2000


Family, Litigation Practice
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments.
1 Citers


 
W v W (Ancillary Relief: Practice) Times, 15 March 2000
15 Mar 2000
FD

Family
Where in a divorce the parties had gone through the financial dispute resolution but that had failed and the parties turned to the courts to resolve the dispute it was helpful and appropriate, particularly in high value cases, to expand on the background information to illustrate the parties respective contributions, the genesis of current resources and the standard of living during the marriage.

 
Samantha Griffin v Lawrence David Griffin Times, 28 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 119
7 Apr 2000
CA

Family, Contempt of Court
It was not wrong to make an order suspending commitment for contempt of court provided he complied with another order which had been made without any limit of time. The power to commit remains a common law power with statutory restrictions. An order can be valid and within the judge's discretion even if it is one which should not normally be made.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Jones Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 11 April 2000
11 Apr 2000
CA

Family
A court had the power to extend a maintenance order which was limited in time, even after it had expired. It was sufficient that the application had been made before the order had expired. Conflicting series of cases should now be settled on this basis. To hold otherwise and require that the order itself must be made before the order expired would lead to injustice and uncertainty. It was necessary to show an intention to exercise the jurisdiction of the court, and that was satisfied my issuing the application.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 28(1A)

 
Shackell v United Kingdom 45851/99
27 Apr 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Family, Benefits
The court held inadmissible a claim by an unmarried woman to widow's benefit. The parties having chosen not to marry, they could not complain of not having the legal benefits of a marriage. The promotion of marriage by way of limited benefits for surviving spouses could not be said to exceed the margin of appreciation afforded to the Government: "The court accepts that there may well not be an increased social acceptance of stable personal relationships outside the traditional notion of marriage. However, marriage remains an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who enter it."
1 Citers



 
 Hannigan v Hannigan; CA 18-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 159
 
In R H (A Minor) (Court Bundles: Disallowance of Fees) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000
6 Jun 2000
CA

Family, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
The court's practice direction on the provision of bundles and the specification of what the bundles should contain in Family Division cases, a warning to practitioners that they would have little by way of answer to a wasted costs order. The shorter the appointment the greater the need for appropriate bundles, and the judge should not be expected to have to rely upon the court papers.
1 Cites



 
 In the Matter of F (Adult Patient); CA 16-Jun-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 192

 
 In Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re L, V, M and H (Children); CA 21-Jun-2000 - Times, 21 June 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] Fam 260; [2000] Fam Law 615; [2000] EWCA Civ 194; [2000] 4 All ER 609; [2000] 2 FCR 404; [2000] Fam Law 603; [2001] 2 WLR 339; [2000] 2 FLR 334
 
G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA

Family, Magistrates
The issue of whether a respondent to a non-molestation order application was an associated person, was to be construed purposively. The system was designed to afford a swift and accessible procedure. There had been present three of the admirable Crake signposts of co-habitation, a sexual relationship, financial support, and a respondent's admissions against interest. If they had taken the co-habitation point first, the association would have become an open question.
Family Law Act 1996
1 Cites


 
G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement) [2004] 1 FLR 1011
28 Jun 2000
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family
The parties had been married before and had signed a prenuptial agreement. Held: Thorpe LJ set out the duties of a judge in ancillary relief applications: "A judge has to do fairness between the parties, having regard to all the circumstances. He must be free to include within that discretionary review the factors which compelled the wife to terminate the marriage as she did. The point was essentially taken as a defensive shield to the reliance upon the duration submission. There must surely be room for the exercise of a judicial discretion between the pole of a wife who is driven to petition by the husband's unfeeling misconduct and that of a wife who exits from a marriage capriciously and for her own advantage. It seems to me that the judge was doing no more than taking his bearings as to where he stood along that path."
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(d)
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction: (Family Proceedings: Ancillary Relief Procedure) Times, 04 July 2000
4 Jul 2000
FD

Family
The court gave directions as to the extension of the new ancillary relief procedures to all family courts, and clarified the duties of parties taking part in dispute resolution appointments, to make real attempts to reach settlements, and to acknowledge that no part of such procedure would later be admissible. The court also emphasised the need to comply with the pre-application protocols.

 
W v H (Family Division: without notice orders) [2001] 1 All ER 300
10 Jul 2000
FD
Munby J
Family, Litigation Practice
Munby J considered the practice to be followed in the Family Division when injunctions are granted ex parte and without notice against third parties in ancillary relief cases. Held: The court traced the history of undertakings in damages give by litigants in the family division seeking interim injunctions.
As to the Interoute case, "I am not pursuaded that Lightman J.'s approach can simply be imposed without more ado in the Family Division. The circumstances in which ex parte relief is obtained in the Family Division vary very widely. Moreover, as cases such as Khreino v Khreino (No.2) (court's power to grant injunctions) [2000] 1 FCR 80 so vividly illustrate, such relief is often granted in the Family Division in circumstances very far removed indeed from any circumstances in which ex parte relief is ever normally granted in the Chancery Division."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Nwogbe v Nwogbe; CA 11-Jul-2000 - Times, 11 July 2000; Gazette, 07 September 2000; [2000] 2 FLR 744

 
 In Re F (Adult: Court's Jurisdiction); CA 25-Jul-2000 - Times, 25 July 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; Gazette, 21 September 2000; [2001] 1 Fam 38; [2000] 2 FLR 512
 
Dorney-Kingdom v Dorney-Kingdom Times, 25 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000
25 Jul 2000
CA

Children, Family, Child Support
A court may not make an original order for child maintenance, save by consent. The practice of disguising such an order, as part of spousal maintenance, pending a determination by the Child Support Agency, was only legitimate where there was included a real element of spousal maintenance. Simply calling child maintenance spousal maintenance is not correct or legitimate.
Child Support Act 1991 8(5)

 
In Re L (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Cohabiting Solicitors) Times, 27 July 2000; Gazette, 19 October 2000
27 Jul 2000
FD

Legal Professions, Family
Where two solicitors who cohabited appeared on either side of a case, it was appropriate, if objection was taken, for either or both to withdraw. The cohabitation could give rise to a perception of bias. The power to remove an advocate is inherent and statutory. The freedom to choose one's advocate is fundamental, and must be limited only with great care. An injection was unnecessary, and the court can remove the name from the court record. No formal or general rule can be set as to the circumstances in which such decisions may need to be made.

 
Binder v Binder [2000] EWCA Civ 412
28 Jul 2000
CA

Family
Order to vacate family home on ancillary relief proceedings
[ Bailii ]
 
A v B unreported, 31 July 2000
31 Jul 2000
FD
Lloyd J
Family
Husband and wife pursued ancillary relief applications, but an issue arose as to copyright, and it was transferred to Chancery. W kept a personal diary. H read it after W said she wanted a divorce. He read passages and had extracts photocopied before returning it. He still retained two pairs of copies and a further copy of one page. W sought delivery up of the retained copies, as being made in breach of copyright and of confidence. The application was for summary judgment on the basis of affidavit evidence only. Held. They had been relevant to the matrimonial proceedings. H denied that it was confidential, and submitted that an order for delivery up requires some breach of confidence to be shown. Lloyd J said: "It seems to me that the relevance of the need to specify what the information which is confidential is and accordingly be protected may arise in relation to a situation of this kind, as it certainly does in a commercial situation. But it is relevant mainly and perhaps only, to a claim for an injunction. To order delivery up, is concerned, the court must be satisfied that the material includes something which is confidential, but it would be a defence that on the same page there is also a statement of something which is in the public domain". The pages were confidential. H submited that the confidentiality would justify an order if the material might later be put in evidence. Lloyd J declined summarily to order summary delivery up for copyright breach since "copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings". The evidence justified proceeding on the basis that when the photocopies were made W had already said that she wanted the divorce and that he foresaw that they might be useful as evidence. The judge did not decide what the true effect of section 45 was. He said: "I regard it as sufficiently well arguable that it is not limited to copies made after the issue of the appropriate originating process, and accordingly that whether a copy made before that moment is made for the purposes of proceedings which are in fact commenced thereafter is to be determined by an objective assessment, which no doubt would have regard to the evidence of the copier but would not be limited to that". On the claim in breach of confidence, Lloyd J declined to order delivery. The jurisdiction was equitable. W was required to lodge all copies which were in his custody power or possession with his solicitors subject to an undertaking that they were only used for the purposes of proceedings pending between the parties: "It seems to me that …… though the applicant is not entitled to have the documents back as of right, she is entitled to have them safeguarded and their use controlled in this way".
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 45(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina and Secretary of State for Home Department v Gavin Mellor [2000] EWHC Admin 385
31 Jul 2000
Admn

Prisons, Family, Human Rights, Health

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
W v Middlesborough Borough Council (Exclusion Order: Evidence) Times, 04 August 2000
4 Aug 2000
FD

Family
When an application was made to exclude somebody from their home, the statement of facts in support must not only detail the factual material, but also refer to the evidence which supported, in appropriate cases, the relevant provisions under the Act. The statement must also be clear as to what was required of the respondent. It was wrong to imprison the applicant for a breach of a court order which had clearly no longer been appropriate at the time of the breach.
Children Act 1989 - Family Proceedings Court (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1397)


 
 Hale v Tanner; CA 22-Aug-2000 - Times, 22 August 2000; [2002] FLR 879; [2000] 1 WLR 2377
 
Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Human Rights) Times, 12 October 2000
12 Oct 2000
FD

Human Rights, Family
Those seeking to present to the court arguments under the Human Rights Act must produce to the court full and authoritative texts of the cases they relied upon (including texts downloaded from the ECHR Internet site), and cases involving a possible application for a declaration of incompatibility should be allocated to a High Court judge. Cases involving claims arising from a judicial act should be reserved in the County Court to a circuit judge, and in the High Court to a High Court Judge.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
Mubarak v Mubarak [2000] EWHC 466 (Fam); [2001] 1 FLR 673; [2001] Fam Law 177
23 Oct 2000
FD
Bodey J
Family, Company
The court had made an order for payment by H to W on the divorce, and was now asked whether W could take jewelry held by H's company in part satisfaction of the capital sums due.
[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction (Family Proceedings Costs) Times, 24 October 2000
24 Oct 2000
FD

Family, Costs
New and future practice directions as to costs under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied as appropriate to family proceedings and proceedings in the Family Division. The significant difference remained as to systems of funding, and it remains the case that enforceable conditional fee arrangements will not apply in family cases.


 
 White v White; HL 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 31 October 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 1571; [2000] UKHL 54; [2001] 1 All ER 1; (2000) 2 FLR 981; [2001] 1 AC 596; [2000] 3 FCR 555; [2001] Fam Law 12

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Lally; QBD 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 26 October 2000
 
W v W (Physical inter-sex) Times, 31 October 2000; [2001] Fam 111
31 Oct 2000
FD
Charles J
Family
A party to a marriage had ambiguous physical characteristics. The respondent's sex at birth was uncertain, and that the parents chose to register her as a boy. As a child and a young woman she dressed as, appeared as, and acted as female. At 17, she finally ran permanently away from home and thereafter lived as a woman before gender re-assignment surgery, and had consummated the marriage as female, but was infertile. Held: In the circumstances it would be correct to find that she was female for the purposes of testing the validity of the marriage. On the true construction of the Matrimonial Causes Act, greater emphasis could be placed on gender rather than sex.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
1 Citers



 
 In Re S (A Child) (Ex Parte Orders); CA 2-Nov-2000 - Times, 02 November 2000
 
Levy v Legal Services Commission (Formerly the Legal Aid Board) Gazette, 30 November 2000; Times, 01 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 285
10 Nov 2000
CA

Insolvency, Family, Legal Aid
A costs order made in the course of family proceedings had the same protection against enforcement through insolvency proceedings as do other family orders. No provable bankruptcy debt arose because it was made under an order in family proceedings. There were no special circumstances to require the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to found a bankruptcy petition on a non-provable debt. A party served with a statutory demand based upon a non-provable debt has the right to have the demand set aside, since there was no realistic prospect of a bankruptcy order following.
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12.3(2)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Winter v Winter November 10, 2000, unreported
10 Nov 2000
CA
Brooke LJ
Family, Costs
Brooke LJ said: "before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition and enable a court to do greater justice if a party has caused court costs to be expended on an issue on which he ultimately fails."
1 Citers



 
 A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees); FD 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 377
 
Bellinger v Bellinger Times, 22 November 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 389
22 Nov 2000
FD
Johnson J
Family, Administrative
The test for what sex somebody was for the purposes of validating a marriage was the sex as decided and set out on the birth registration certificate. Though increasing recognition has been given to the complexities of gender identity over the years, this was an area which, if it was to be reformed, must be reformed by parliament and as a comprehensive whole, not piecemeal by judges. Johnson J said: "There is now a distinct possibility that were it possible to do so, examination of the brain of a living individual would reveal further indications of gender. But that is not yet possible and the practical reality is that whatever may ultimately emerge from advances in medical science, the only criteria for determining the gender of an individual remain those identified in Corbett."
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 First National Bank Plc v Walker and Another; CA 23-Nov-2000 - Times, 13 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 3015; [2001] 1 FCR 21; [2001] 1 FLR 505; [2001] Fam Law 182
 
De Montford v Mckenzie [2000] EWCA Civ 411
23 Nov 2000
CA

Family
Ancillary relief
[ Bailii ]

 
 Mubarak v Mubarak; FD 30-Nov-2000 - Times, 30 November 2000; [2001] 1 FCR 193; [2001] 1 FLR 673
 
H, Re [2000] EWCA Civ 414
30 Nov 2000
CA

Family
Power to attach power of arrest when claimant under 18.
Family Law Act 1996 Part IV
[ Bailii ]
 
Dharamshi v Dharamshi [2000] EWCA Civ 305
5 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Schiemann, And Lord Justice Thorpe
Family
On a divorce where there were fairly substantial sums at issue, the two parties argued for different bases for calculation of the wife's interests, either her reasonable needs according to Duxbury tables, or otherwise to reflect the particular facts. Held: The Ogden tables should not be preferred in matrimonial proceedings. In substantial asset cases two principles apply: there must be no gender discrimination in applying the statutory criteria, and equality should be departed from only with good reason. The need to articulate reasons for departing from equality would help the parties and the court to focus on the need to ensure the absence of discrimination, and the ceiling of reasonable requirements must be rejected. Appeal dismissed.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Elliott v Elliott [2000] EWCA Civ 407_2
20 Dec 2000
CA

Family
Application for leave to enter fresh evidence on appeal against ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Elliott v Elliott [2000] EWCA Civ 407
20 Dec 2000
CA

Family
Ancillary relief
[ Bailii ]

 
 A Local Authority v A Mother and Child; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 339
 
Campbell Or Wilson v Wilson [2000] ScotSC 34
21 Dec 2000
ScSf
Sheriff Principal B A Kerr
Family, Scotland

Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.