The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
APPEALS: CONTACT: Re K (Appeal: Contact)  EWCA Civ 1365
Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jan 14, 2011, 01:30 AM
Article ID :93363
(Court of Appeal; Sir Nicholas Wall P, Laws and Toulson LJJ; 2 December 2010)
The District judge dismissed the father's application for contact with children and made a s 91(14) order for one year. The District judge made a finding that the father was guilty of serious litigation conduct in withdrawing a previous contact application to avoid a fact finding hearing.
Father's appeal allowed. The District Judge's order for no contact and a s91(14) order deprived the children of the chance of growing up with a real knowledge of their father without oral evidence and in breach of the father's Art 6 rights. It was plainly wrong and the appeal Judge should have said so. The father's litigation conduct did not mean his application had no prospect of success, being based on the paramount welfare of the children.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.