Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT/ RESIDENCE: AA v NA and Kab [2010] EWHC 1282

Sep 29, 2018, 17:58 PM
Slug : contact-residence-aa-v-na-and-kab-2010-ewhc-1282
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 22, 2010, 10:05 AM
Article ID : 91101

(Family Division; Mostyn J; 10 June 2010)

Appeal against a fact-finding decision. Over the 17 day hearing there were 89 allegations in issue including assault on the mother and physical abuse of children. The judge found for the mother on every point and proceeded to make an interim shared residence order. The appellate court would only be able to conclude that a fact-finder had got the wrong answer if (i) the conclusion was demonstrably contrary to the weight of evidence; or (ii) the decision-making process was identified as plainly defective, so that it could be said that the findings in question were unsafe.

With hindsight the whole exercise was completely futile, but the court couldn't overturn the decision on that basis only. The balance of probability was slightly misstated by the judge who had also made very adverse findings against the father based on some litigation misconduct by the father. The litigation misconduct did not necessarily demonstrate an intrinsic mendacity on the primary issue. The judge had failed to take account of the various points on which the mother had changed her account. The whole judgment was rendered unsafe and should be set aside. Should not be a further fact-finding hearing as equal shared care had already been agreed.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

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.

 

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