Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
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...
View all articles

Bairns and Borders: Problems with the Family Law Act 1986

Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Slug : bairns-and-borders-problems-with-the-family-law-act-1986
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 5, 2010, 06:36 AM
Article ID : 86503

ALAN INGLIS, Barrister Coram Chambers, London and ARNOT MANDERSON, Advocates, Edinburgh

This article considers the implications of the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal and its Scottish equivalent on which Court had jurisdiction to consider the future of the same child, R, within the context of the same UK wide statute, the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986). In B v B [2004] EWCA Civ 681, [2004] 2 FLR 741 a Court of Appeal consisting of Wall and Arden LJJ held that the law of England and Wales applied, while in the recent case RAB v MIB [2008] CSIH 52, [2009] 1 FLR 602, the Inner House of the Court of Session comprised of Lord Eassie, Lady Paton and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon came to the contrary conclusion. Ironically, it is a conclusion described by Wall LJ as 'virtually unarguable' at p 743, para [3].

To read the rest of this article, see December [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from