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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 77 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 H v H (Financial Provision: Special Contribution); FD 2002 - [2002] 2 FLR 1021

 
 P v Wozencroft (Expert Evidence: Data Protection); FD 2002 - [2002] 2 FLR 1118; [2002] EWHC 1724 (Fam)
 
Re H (Mackenzie Friend: Pre-trial Determination) [2002] 1 FLR 39
2002


Family, Litigation Practice
The presumption in favour of permitting a Mackenzie friend is a strong one.
1 Citers


 
In re S (Adult patient) (Inherent jurisdiction: Family life); Sheffield City Council v S [2003] 1 FLR 292; [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam)
2002
FD
Munby J
Health, Family, Human Rights
A court could only grant an order permitting treatment despite the absence of an adult patient's consent by virtue of the doctrine of necessity.
Munby J said: "in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms . . The fact is that many adults and children, whether through choice or circumstance, live in families more or less removed from what until comparatively recently would have been recognised as the typical nuclear family. But – and this is the point - the family, whatever form it takes, is the bedrock of our society and the foundation of our way of life."
1 Citers


 
Re H (McKenzie Friend: Pre-Trial Determination) [2002] 1 FLR 39; [2001] EWCA Civ 1444
2002
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family, Litigation Practice
The judge had refused a father's application to be assisted by a McKenzie friend (a Dr Pelling) on the ground that, having listened to and observed the proposed McKenzie friend, he felt that, with the father on his own, the hearing would be fairer, as well as less adversarial and legalistic. Held: The court allowed the father's appeal.
Thorpe LJ said: the presumption in favour of permitting a McKenzie friend was a strong one. The argument in the court below had necessarily been an adversarial and legalistic one and, since it was unusual for a respondent to oppose an application for McKenzie assistance, as the mother had done vehemently, it was possible that she had contributed to the adversariality.
1 Citers


 
B v B (Mesher Order) [2003] 2 FLR 285; [2002] EWHC 3106 (Fam)
2002
FD
Munby J
Family
A breadwinner's unimpaired and unimpeded earning capacity is a powerful resource which can frequently repair any loss of capital after an unequal distribution.
Matriminial Causes Act 1973 25
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re G (Decree Absolute: Prejudice) [2002] EWHC 2834 (Fam); [2003] 1 FLR 870
2002
FD
Bennett J
Family
H was the respondent in the divorce. He applied for a decree nisi to be made absolute. W opposed because, she said, she would lose her rights under the 1975 Act. She also alleged non-disclosure in the ancillary relief proceedings. Held: Even if this much was proved, H's suggested departure from the country in an attempt to frustrate her financial claims would not necessarily follow. Though the husband might not be prejudiced by the delay, in the absence of good grounds from W to refuse a grant, then it should be granted. Had W applied for the decree, it certainly would have been granted. Bennett J said: "I do not consider that the mere fact that there are ancillary relief proceedings yet to be heard and adjudicated upon is a sufficient reason to hold up the grant of the absolute and, accordingly, the application by the Husband for a Decree Absolute would be granted."
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 - Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 9(2)

 
Cordell v Cordell [2002] 1 FLR 207
2002


Family
To succeed in an appeal against an ancillary relief order, the appellant should be able to show some procedural irregularity or that, in conducting the necessary balancing exercise, the district judge has taken into account matters which were irrelevant or ignored matters which were relevant or has otherwise arrived at a conclusion which was plainly wrong and could only have been reached if the Judge erred in the balancing exercise.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25 25A
1 Citers



 
 Al-Khatib v Masry; FD 2002 - [2002] 1 FLR 1053; [2002] EWHC 108 (Fam)
 
M v M (Prenuptial Agreement) [2002] 1 FLR 654
2002
FD
Connell J
Family
Connell J discussed the effect of the presence of a prenuptial agreement, saying "The prenuptial agreement in my view is relevant to tending to guide the court to a more modest award than might have been made without it. I reject outright the suggestion that it should dictate the wife's entitlement; but I bear it in mind nevertheless". It did not matter whether a prenuptial agreement was taken into account under the more specific rubric of s 25(2)(g) of the 1973 UK Act or, more generally, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25

 
Practice Note (Family Division: Incapacitated adults) Times, 04 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 325
2 Jan 2002
FD
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division
Health, Family
Proceedings which invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant declarations as to the best interests of incapacitated adults were civil proceedings to which the Civil Procedure Rules applied. Although not assigned to any division, having regard to their nature and the issues raised within them, such proceedings were more suitable for hearing in the Family Division.
Accordingly, those proceedings should be commenced, and would be determined, as follows:
(a) Permanent vegetative state cases should be issued in the principal registry of the Family Division and would be determined by the President of the Family Division or by a judge nominated by her. Interlocutory applications would be heard by the President or by the nominated judge.
(b) Other proceedings might be commenced in any registry but must be determined by a judge of the division. Interlocutory applications were to be heard by a judge of the division.
Practice Note: Declaratory proceedings: Medical and welfare decisions for adults who lack capacity ((2001) 2 FLR 158), dated May 1, 2001 and issued by the Official Solicitor, provided valuable guidance in relation to those proceedings and should be followed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sherrocks v Sherrocks [2002] EWCA Civ 33
16 Jan 2002
CA
Wilson J
Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dooris v Dooris; CANI 18-Jan-2002 - HIGF3570; [2002] NICA 4
 
Allan v Clibbery (1) Times, 05 February 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 45; [2002] Fam 261; [2002] 1 FLR 565; [2002] UKHRR 697
30 Jan 2002
CA
Butler-Sloss P FD LJ, Lord Justice Thorpe, and, Lord Justice Keene
Family, Media, Information, Human Rights
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed by the media. Held: The description of the law at first instance was too wide in stating that family proceedings could not, with the exception of children cases, be heard in private. It does not follow alone from the fact that a hearing was in private that there was a ban on reporting it. Family proceedings are not different from other civil proceedings, save in recognised classes of cases, and situations which manifestly required permanent confidentiality. There is no one approach to the balance between the right to family life in article 8 and freedom of expression in article 10 of the Convention.
Whether family proceedings in chambers are protected from publication depends upon whether they come within the 1960 Act or whether the administration of justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced by publication.
There is an implied obligation upon a party to whom documents are disclosed in proceedings for ancillary relief not to disseminate them, or copies of them, to third parties without the leave of the court
Family Law Act 1996 36 - Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991 No 1247 (L20)) 3.9(1 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rose v Rose Times, 12 March 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 208; [2002] 1 FLR 978
20 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Buxton
Family
The parties married in 1984, and divorced in 2000. They had two children. The husband had a substantial fortune. In ancillary relief proceedings, at the financial dispute resolution hearing, the judge indicated what order was on his mind, the parties negotiated, and an agreement was agreed with the judge. Before a formal order was written up, the husband sought to resile. Held: In the context of the new ancillary relief procedures, judges would approach these things differently, and should not be hidebound. The stage reached in this particular case was that of an unperfected court order, and the husband would not be allowed to resile from it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanton v Stanton and others [2002] EWCA Civ 343
25 Feb 2002
CA
Ward LJ
Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 S v S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order); FD 4-Mar-2002 - Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] 3 WLR 1372; [2003] Fam 1; [2002] 1 FLR 992; [2002] IDS Pensions Law Reports 219
 
Robert David Edward Foster v Cindy Louise Foster [2002] EWCA Civ 461
8 Mar 2002
CA
Charles J
Family
Application for permission to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
Egbaiyelo v Egbaiyelo [2002] EWCA Civ 454
18 Mar 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476; [2002] EWCA Civ 475; [2002] 2 FLR 97
20 Mar 2002
CA

Family
The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H's income substantially reduced.The judge had achieved a clean break by allocating properties to the respective parties, giving priority to the children who would live with W in the matrimonial home. H appealed saying that the judge had provided for the wife, and given what was left to the hudband. Held: W had been left secure, with H bearing substantial risks dependent upon the future of the business. However H had been concerned to keep his business. The judge had failed to address the issue of the husband's needs, and the periodical payments for the children were unsustainable. The order was varied.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 825
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002) 65 BMLR 149; [2002] Fam Law 423; [2002] 2 FCR 1; [2002] 1 FLR 1090; [2002] 2 All ER 449; [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 265; [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam)
22 Mar 2002
FD
The President, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
Family
The applicant had come to suffer from a completely disabling condition, and requested that her life support machine be turned off. She did not want to live on a ventilator, and had made a living will. She was found at first to have capacity to make that decision, but the doctors revised their opinions. She now sought a declaration that she had capacity, and that her treatment against her will was unlawful. Held: The right to determine what shall be done with one's own body is a fundamental right in our society. There is a presumption of capacity. It was dangerous to generalise about the effect of particular placements in this case her presence in an intensive care unit as reducing capacity. Capacity might need to be established to a higher degree where an especially grave decision was being made. In this case the patient had capacity. The treating clinicians and the hospital should always have in mind that a seriously physically disabled patient who is mentally competent, has the same right to personal autonomy, and to make decisions as any other person with mental capacity. If there is no disagreement about competence but the doctors are for any reason unable to carry out the wishes of the patient, their duty is to find other doctors who will do so.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vekaria v Vekaria [2002] EWCA Civ 534
11 Apr 2002
CA

Family
Appeal against decree nisi of divorce on allegation of unreasonable behaviour.
[ Bailii ]
 
Channon v Channon [2002] EWCA Civ 537
15 Apr 2002
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family
Application for leave to appeal adjourned.
[ Bailii ]
 
Eve v Spratt [2002] EWCA Civ 580
16 Apr 2002
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ P
Family
W sought leave to appeal against the refusal in an ancillary relief application to award her any maintenance.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another [2002] EWHC 611
18 Apr 2002

Munby J
Family, Criminal Sentencing
The court held that they were not precluded by an application made under the 1994 Act against assets of the husband from making an order in favour of the wife under the 1973 Act. The court discharged the Receiver appointed under section 29(2) DTA 1994 and dismissed an application by HM Customs & Excise for Mr A’s interest in the property and the policies to be included in the realisable property over which the Receiver had been appointed: "The wife’s evidence is that she had no knowledge of the husband’s criminal activities, that she never saw anything to alert her to what he was doing and that it all came as an incredible shock to her when he was arrested. Very fairly and properly Customs & Excise, both before Hooper J on 4 October 2001 (see Re A [2001] EWHC Admin 773 para [10]) and again before me, accepted that no part of the equity in either the house or the policies was acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking and that the couple had separated before the husband had started his drug trafficking activities. Indeed, says Mr Bird, the wife went so far as to assist the authorities by giving the prosecution a statement, though in the event she was not called at the trial. As Hooper J said, the wife: “is not only innocent of any involvement in drug trafficking, but she also lives in a house and enjoys the benefit of policies all untainted by drug trafficking.”"
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
1 Citers


 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A; A v A Times, 09 May 2002
18 Apr 2002
FD
Mr Justice Munby
Customs and Excise, Family, Human Rights
The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover the sum ordered. Held: The section under the 1994 Act did protect the interest of the wife. Her right to occupy the house under the 1973 Act created an interest over and above her financial interest, and that interest was protected by section 31(4). There had to be a right and that right had to be 'in' the property. She claimed a similar protection under the Human Rights Act. Despite the risk of the husband being unable to satisfy the confiscation order, and thus be returned to prison, the proper order in this case was to vest the entire house in the wife's name.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) 62(5)(a) 62(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Pro 1

 
Perera v Perera [2002] EWCA Civ 714
8 May 2002
CA

Family, Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Rahnema v Rahnema and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 695
17 May 2002
CA

Family, Trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
Nahar, Regina (on the Application Of) v Social Security Commissioners and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 859
27 May 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Robert Walker, Clarke LJJ
Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanton v Stanton [2002] EWCA Civ 1015
17 Jun 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Ryder, Regina (on the Application of) v The Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths [2002] EWHC 1191 (Admin)
20 Jun 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Lightman
Administrative, Family
Gilliatt The claimant was born in 1949 with barely formed male genitalia. He was registered at birth as a male child. He lived for some of his life as a male and for some time as a female until he underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1999, since which time the claimed lived life entirely as a female. An application to have the birth certificate amended to reflect the gender change was refused by the Registrar. S 29(1) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 forbids unauthorised alterations of the register which must include the sex of the child. The court followed previous cases when it was decided that the register is a historical record. It accurately recorded the fact of gender at birth and the current case law did not allow amendment (appeal to the House of Lords pending in the case of Bellinger). Unless the House of Lords decided otherwise or Parliament provided otherwise, the claimant could not succeed in having the birth register amended.
Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 29(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order) Times, 16 July 2002; Gazette, 21 August 2002
21 Jun 2002
FD
Wilson J
Costs, Family, Civil Procedure Rules
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules as to costs in Family division proceedings did not replace entirely the old rules after April 26, 1999, and the Leary case was not superceded. The requirement for summary assessment of costs for hearings less than a day did not abrogate the power to make such an assessment in longer cases, and indeed under the rules, the possibility should be considered in every case. In family cases, in particular, detailed assessments tended only to prolong bitterness.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites


 
Al-Khatib v Masry and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1045
26 Jun 2002
CA

Family
Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
L, Re (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] EWHC 1379 (Fam)
1 Jul 2002
FD

Family

[ Bailii ]

 
 G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division); FD 2-Jul-2002 - [2002] 2 FLR 1143; [2002] EWHC 1339 (Fam)
 
Otobo v Otobo; O v O (Appeal against Stay: Divorce Petition) [2002] EWCA Civ 949; [2003] Fam Law 12; [2002] 3 FCR 123; [2003] 1 FLR 192
2 Jul 2002
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss DBE President of the Family Division Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Buxton
Family
The husband, a wealthy Nigerian had supported further traditional families outside the UK. The wife appealed a stay on her divorce petition. The husband argued that her habitual residence did not support jurisdiction. Agreed expert evidence concluded that the marriage being recognised here the subsequent traditional marriages in Nigeria. The husband then shifted his ground to say that this marriage itself was only a customary marriage, and that the ceremony in church had been only a blessing. The judge had ordered a stay saying that a Nigerian order would be recognised here but not necessarily vice versa and that the facts and family history meant it would better be determined in Nigeria. Held: The dispute boils down to competing beliefs as to the attractivemess to the parties of the respective jurisdictions in ancillary relief proceedings. In fact the husband had manipulated the application for a stay and the judge's discretion had been wrongly exercised: "the grant of a stay works unfairness to the wife to a degree that is unacceptable." The stay was lifted.
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(6)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cartwright v Cartwright and Others Times, 31 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 931; [2002] EWCA Civ 931
3 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Rix and Lady Justice Arden
Family, Insolvency
The petitioner former wife sought to make the husband bankrupt on the basis of unpaid maintenance debts. The maintenance was subject to variation by the original foreign court which had made the order. Held: The order was one recognised under the Act. The fact that the foreign court could still order a variation was critical to the case. That debt could not be used to found a bankruptcy petition. Following Harrop, a foreign maintenance order which was variable could not be enforced in England at common law because it was not final and conclusive.
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 21 - Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 12.3(2)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan v Morgan [2002] EWCA Civ 1057
5 Jul 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Gibbins v Gibbins [2002] EWCA Civ 1377
10 Jul 2002
CA
Ward LJ
Family
Application by Mr Gibbins for permission to appeal against the grant of a Decree Nisi of a divorce. The respondent, Mrs Gibbins, had petitioned for divorce on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievably broken down by reason of the fact that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Goodwin v The United Kingdom; ECHR 11-Jul-2002 - Times, 12 July 2002; 28957/95; (2002) 35 EHRR 18; (2002) 35 EHRR 447; [2002] ECHR 588; 13 BHRC 120; (2002) 67 BMLR 199; [2002] 2 FCR 577; [2002] 2 FLR 487; [2002] Fam Law 738; [2002] IRLR 664; [2011] ECHR 1666
 
B v B [2002] EWHC 3106 (Fam)
11 Jul 2002
FD

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
P, C And S v The United Kingdom Times, 16 August 2002; 56547/00; [2002] ECHR 599; 56547/00; (2002) 35 EHRR 1075; [2002] ECHR 604
16 Jul 2002
ECHR
Costa, Baka, Bratza, Jorundsson, Loucaides, Birsan and Ugrekhelidze, Early
Human Rights, Children, Family
The applicants challenged the way in which their newborn children had been removed by the state after birth. S had not had the opportunity of legal representation, after her lawyers had withdrawn. The removal of S's child was challenged as disproportionate and a breach of the right to family life. Held: Given the importance of the decision, the denial of legal representation infringed the family's legal rights. Representation was necessary, and the refusal to allow an adjournment denied a fair trial. The procedure under which a decision was made before the birth of a child to remove it at birth, leading to a probable adoption was draconian and not justified given the alternative possibilities, and was an interference with the right to family life.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA; CA 22-Jul-2002 - Gazette, 26 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1039; [2003] 2 WLR 210; [2003] Fam 55
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A Times, 25 July 2002; [2003] 2 All ER 736; [2003] Fam 55
22 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge and Mr Justice Wall
Family, Customs and Excise
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both Acts gave discretion to the judge, and the decisions will vary from situation to situation, and it was not axiomatic that one Act took precedence over the other. In appropriate cases, collusion between spouses could be dealt with after the event by the Customs establishing absence of full disclosure to the court making the order. The primary task of a court is to find facts and identify the crucial legal points and to advance reasons for deciding them in a particular way, rather than to engage in academic discussion.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 29
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Afshar v Lomas; CA 25-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1381
 
Shah v Shah [2002] EWCA Civ 1312
29 Jul 2002
CA
Thorpe LJ, Ferris J
Family
Application for leave to appeal - ancillary relief - allegation that court system corrupt.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dracup v Dracup [2002] EWCA Civ 1311
29 Jul 2002
CA

Family
Ancillary relief - application for leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]

 
 Shaw v Shaw; CA 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1298; [2002] 2 FLR 1204; [2002] 3 FCR 298
 
Mountney v Treharne Times, 09 September 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1174; [2003] Ch 135
8 Aug 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Insolvency, Family, Equity
In ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, the husband had been ordered to transfer his interest in property to his wife. Before it was put into effect, he became insolvent. The wife and receiver competed for the interest to have been transferred. Held: Upon the order taking effect (upon the decree absolute), the wife acquired an equitable interest in the property, and the trustee in bankruptcy took subject to that interest. The ratio in Maclurcan was directly applicable and binding, though the correctness of that decision was doubted. It is the order of the court exercising the matrimonial jurisdiction which effects the transfer of the beneficial interest not the subsequent disposition made by or on behalf of the individual who later becomes bankrupt.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(a) - Insolvency Act 1986 283(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rasool v Khushi [2002] EWCA Civ 1386
21 Aug 2002
CA

Family
Application for permission to make second appeal against divorce ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bright v Bright [2002] EWCA Civ 1412
10 Sep 2002
CA

Family
Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas v Thomas [2002] EWCA Civ 1404
11 Sep 2002
CA
Ward LJ
Family
Application for leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Ashley-Nicholson v Ashley-Nicholson [2002] EWCA Civ 1364
12 Sep 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Tee-Hillman v Tee and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1441
24 Sep 2002
CA

Family

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Rodney David Haines v Lynne Valerie Carter [2002] UKPC 49
7 Oct 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, The Rt. Hon. Justice Tipping
Commonwealth, Family
PC (New Zealand) The parties had separated after living together. An agreement had been secured through mediation, which agreement was now at issue. Payment was sought ouside the period set for enforcement. Held: Though the period set for enforcement was only six months, several obligations were intended to continue, and the period for enforcement must be read accordingly. Under the agreement between the parties the mediators were bound to reconvene the mediation for the purpose stated in correspondence.
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Legg v Legg [2002] EWCA Civ 1517
14 Oct 2002
CA
Mance LJ
Family
Appeal against rejection of extension of time to appeal against ancillary relief order on divorce.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy; CA 16-Oct-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1748; [2003] 3 FCR 167
 
Forder v Forder and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1527
16 Oct 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
SSG, Regina (On the Application of) v Liverpool City Council and Another [2002] EWHC 4000 (Admin)
22 Oct 2002
Admn

Health, Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Holmes v Wheeler-Johns [2002] EWCA Civ 1650
28 Oct 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Hayer v Hayer [2002] EWCA Civ 1670
30 Oct 2002
CA

Family
Appeal in ancillary relief proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dallen v Dallen [2002] EWCA Civ 1781
6 Nov 2002
CA

Family
Aplication for interim relief to prevent order for decree absolute pending appeal against decree nisi of divorce.
[ Bailii ]
 
J and B [2002] EWCA Civ 1661
7 Nov 2002
CA

Criminal Practice, Family, Human Rights
The Crown prosecution service sought judicial review of a decision by the registrar of marriages to celebrate the marriage between the parties. He was due to face trial for murder, and she was to give evidence against him. Held: The registrar should be allowed to continue and to celebrate the marriage. It could not be said that the defendant was doing this to attempt to avoid liability for a serious crime. He might do other things also such as calling witnesses. "The right to marry has always been a right recognised by the laws of this country long before the Human Rights Act came into force. The right of course is also enshrined in article 12 of the Convention. It has more recently been held that prisoners are not to be denied that right in the cases cited by the judge. The right, furthermore, must not be denied to B who has indeed born a child to J. It seems to me that the right of marriage carries with it the incidences of marriage, including that the wife may not be compelled to give evidence against her husband or vice versa. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003
7 Nov 2002
CA
Dame Butler-Sloss President, Waller LJ, Sir Philip Otton
Family, Prisons, Evidence, Human Rights
The prisoner awaited trial. Among the prosecution witnesses was his partner. They now sought to marry. The applicant sought to prevent the marriage on the basis that this would make her non-compellable as a witness. Held: Public policy considerations did not apply to prevent the marriage. The duty on the registrar to issue a certificate was absolute. Public policy might provide a reason, but did not in this case. Entering into a lawful marriage could not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The right to marry is a human right, and it was not for the prison governor to exercise his discretion to prevent it, since such a discretion could not be exercised save on public policy grounds.
Marriage Act 1949 27A(3) 31(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 12

 
Ward v Akers [2002] EWCA Civ 1713
8 Nov 2002
CA

Family
Application to set aside consent order made in ancillary relief proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Civita v Civita [2002] EWCA Civ 1734
12 Nov 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Dubarry v Dubarry [2002] EWCA Civ 1808
14 Nov 2002
CA

Family, Contempt of Court

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4
[ Bailii ]
 
Shan Elizabeth Rose Lambert v Harry Paul Lambert Times, 27 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1685; [2003] 1 FLR 139; [2003] Fam 103; [2003] 2 WLR 631; [2003] 4 All ER 342; [2002] 3 FCR 673; [2003] Fam Law 16; Independent, 21 November 2002
14 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice May, Mr Justice Bodey, Lord Justice Thorpe
Family
The parties appealed an order for the division of the family's 20 million pound fortune on divorce. The husband argued that his special contribution to the creation of the wealth meant that he should receive a greater share. Held: The Act gave wide discretions to the Court, and nobody could expect clarity or predictability of outcomes. The husband's contention was discriminatory, and could not be adopted. Any substantially new approach would now require legislation. Two themes emerged: "First it is unacceptable to place greater value on the contribution of the breadwinner than that of the homemaker as a justification for dividing the product of the breadwinner's efforts unequally between them. Second both the practicality and the value of the exercise of marking the parties to a failed marriage on their respective performances is questioned. . . . [There] are clear warnings that the excess commonly seen in the litigation of the issue of the applicant's reasonable requirements has now been transposed into disputed, and often futile, evaluations of the contributions of both of the parties." and
"A distinction must be drawn between an assessment of equality of contribution and an order for equality of division. A finding of equality of contribution may be followed by an order for unequal division because of the influence of one or more of the other statutory criteria as well as the over-arching search for fairness. " and
"the danger of gender discrimination resulting from a finding of special financial contribution is plain. If all that is regarded is the scale of the breadwinner's success then discrimination is almost bound to follow since there is no equal opportunity for the homemaker to demonstrate the scale of her comparable success. "
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 - Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(f)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Edwards v Edwards [2002] EWCA Civ 1802
18 Nov 2002
CA

Family
The husband resisted the wife's claim for ancillary relief saying that his depression made him unfit for litigation. The wife said this was a mere tactic to avoid the issues. She also had health problems. Held: This was a difficult situation, but the court should not have given the husbands' adjournment as requested.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hyde v Hyde [2002] EWCA Civ 1826
22 Nov 2002
CA
Hale LJ
Family
W sought leave to appeal against the grant of a decree nisi of divorce granted to her husband. As a committed Christian, she did not believe she had behaved unreasonably. Held: Leave was refused. English law did not require a finding that a party had behaved unreasonably, it was a finding that behaviour had been of a sort such that the the other party could not reasonably be expected to live with them. "It is clear that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Again it is not a moral judgment; it is not a religious judgment; it is a straightforward fact. There may have been a time when it could have been retrieved, but clearly that time has now gone by." The appeal was bound to fail, and leave was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Di Matteo v Di Matteo [2002] EWCA Civ 1861
26 Nov 2002
CA

Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Mark v Mark [2002] EWCA Civ 1837
27 Nov 2002
CA

Family
Effect of questions about immigration status on domicile and jurisdiction to issue divorce petition.
[ Bailii ]
 
Wall v Wall [2002] EWCA Civ 1897
27 Nov 2002
CA
Munby J
Family
The wife sought permision to appeal against an ancillary relief order, relying on Lambert v Lambert, and saying that she had not received a fair hearing. Held: Permission could only be granted if the court thought there was a real chance of success. That chance was not present.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
A and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others Times, 11 December 2002
27 Nov 2002
FD
Sumner J
Family, Children, Media, Costs
Applications had been made by fathers for specific issue orders that their children be immunised. The respondents sought orders to allow the cases to be either heard in open court or for other reporting restrictions to be lifted. As a result of their application, the time allocated for the substantive hearings had been severely compromised, and costs were sought against them. Held: A timely application by the media should not result in a costs order, but here the applications had been late, and had considerably disrupted the hearing. Even if the application was arguable, as it was here, it was not for the media to argue that the individuals involved should themselves have taken any steps. The matter of whether reporting should be allowed and on what terms was for the court alone. An application which was late might be viewed as improper for that very reason, if disruption resulted. Here, however, a pre-trial order might have raised expectations that reporting would be allowed, and a costs order was not appropriate.

 
Norris v Norris [2002] EWHC 2996 (Fam); [2003] 1 FLR 1142
28 Nov 2002
FD
Bennett J
Family
Claim for lump sum for clean break in ancillary relief case.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Day v Day [2002] EWCA Civ 1842
3 Dec 2002
CA

Family
Application for leave to appeal out of time - ancillary relief - very long delay - adjourned for mediation
[ Bailii ]
 
Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886; (2003) 1 FLR 942
20 Dec 2002
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family
The court considered the division of family assets on an ancillary relief application where a family company assets were involved but the assets had been divided equally: "The parties have, perhaps unusually, ordered their affairs during the marriage to achieve equality and to eliminate any potential for gender discrimination. They had in effect elected for a marital regime of community of property. In such circumstances what is the need for the Courts discretionary adjustive powers? The introduction of the "no order" principle into section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 might contribute to the elimination of unnecessary litigation. As a matter of principle I am of the opinion that Judges should give considerable weight to the property arrangements made during marriage and, in cases where the parties have opted for equality, reserve the exercise of the adjustive powers to those cases where fairness obviously demands some reordering." (Thorpe LJ) and "… the outcome of ancillary relief cases depends upon the exercise of a singularly broad judgment that obviates the need for the investigation of minute detail and equally the need to make findings on minor issues in dispute. The judicial task is very different from the task of the judge in the civil justice system whose obligation is to make findings on all issues in dispute relevant to outcome. The quasi-inquisitorial role of the judge in ancillary relief litigation obliges him to investigate issues he considers relevant to outcome even if not advanced by either party. Equally, he is not bound to adopt a conclusion upon which the parties have agreed. . . . But this independence must be matched by an obligation to eschew over-elaboration and to endeavour to paint the canvas of his judgment with a broad brush rather than with a fine sable. Judgments in this field need to be simple … in structure and simply explained."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.