Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing: June Teaser

Cases 

Re F & G (Discharge of Special Guardianship Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 622 (30 April 2021) – A care order and a special guardianship order can exist in respect of the same child, if made in that order. A care order discharges a SGO, but not the other way around.

London Borough of Barnet v AG & ors [2021] EWHC 1253 (Fam) (13 May 2021), Family Division (Sir Andrew McFarlane P, Sir Duncan Ousely) – No incompatibility between European Convention and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations over diplomatic immunity, in this case in relation to the treatment by a diplomat and his wife of their children.

Re TT (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 742 (20 May 2021) – A mother’s application for discharge of care orders were refused; and Mostyn J’s decision in GM v Carmarthenshire County Council [2018] EWFC 36, [2018] 3 WLR 1126 is in correct.

Sparkes v London Pension Funds Authority & anor [2021] EWHC 1265 (QB) (14 May 2021), Murray J – (1) Application under CPR 1998, r 31.17 (mirror provision – in most respects – at FPR 2010, r 21.2) for production of material held by a non-party (NP; a prior owner of land in asbestos claim. Appeal allowed: Master had not understood the claimant’s application (see esp [52]). (2) On costs of NPs: the normal rule (per CPR 46.1) in relation to an application for non-party production (FPR 2010, r 21.2: eg police, or a cohabitant in financial relief proceedings) is that the court grants NP their costs. Murray J felt the NP had been unhelpful and should pay the applicant’s costs.

Re JK (A Child)(Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2021] EWHC 1367 (Fam) (21 May 2021), Poole J – In a child arrangements order hearing finding of coercive control following application of principles in Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA 448 (Civ).

Re M (Children: Applications by email) [2021] EWCA Civ 806, (28 May 2021) – Mother’s successful appeal against a judge’s order in care proceedings, where the judge had only emails – but no evidence – from a children’s lawyer. Reminder of the rules in FPR 2010, Pt 18 for making such applications.

Non-party production of documents

One of the more controversial aspects of evidence in financial relief proceedings is likely to be that of evidence from, and disclosure by, a party’s cohabitant. If one spouse (R) is living with a new partner (P) (married or otherwise; though marriage may emphasise the durability of the new relationship), is evidence from P (1) relevant in the applicant spouse’s (A) financial relief proceedings; and if so (2) how can it be obtained. This article deals with the general question of evidence in family proceedings from a non-party (what, until Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 31.17, used to be called a ‘third party’); and uses the cohabitant question as an illustration. The principles defined in the latter part of the article apply equally to obtaining material from other non-parties, such as an accountant or business partner in financial relief proceedings; obtaining information from health professionals or the police in care proceedings; or from other non-parties in family proceedings.

The Family Law Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.

David Burrows

Written by David Burrows

Subscribe to the Bloomsbury Professional Law Newsletter

Law Online

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw Online research for solicitors and barristers practising in English law Free Trial

Need Help?

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw If you need any help with finding publications or just ask a question. Talk to an Advisor: 01444 416119
customerservices@bloomsburyprofessional.com
or send us a message