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...
(Family Division; Mrs Justice Parker ; 2 July 2010)
The father issued an application for contact with the child. The mother opposed the application and further stated that the child was habitually resident in Portugal, residing with the maternal grandparents. Both parents continued to reside in England. The father did not have parental responsibility and had not been consulted about the relocation.
The Court found pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II), that the child was habitually resident in Portugal and dismissed the father's application on grounds of jurisdiction.
The Court further stated that the law as stated in Re S (Parental responsibility)  2 FLR 921 that an application for Parental Responsibility could still be made to the domestic Courts, despite it not having jurisdiction as regards to s.8 Children Act 1989 Orders was no longer good law as Article 1 of ‘Brussels II' included the ‘attribution' of parental responsibility. Accordingly the Court did not retain any residual decision making powers in relation to the child.
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.