Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing: October Teaser

Cases

Re A and B (Rescission of Order Change of Circumstances) [2021] EWFC 76 (8 September 2021), Cobb J – Application by children (17 and 12) for variation of an order made for them. They wanted to live with their father in Spain. Review of judge’s powers to hear their views.

Mahandru v Nielson [2021] EWHC 2297 (QB) (9 July 2021), Steyn J – Defendant had been successful. His lawyers sought costs of £3,960. No schedule of costs has been served as it should have been. Steyn J refused to make a ‘no order’ order, but allowed counsel's fees only.

J v J (MFPA 1984 - Interim Provision) [2021] EWFC 78 (10 September 2021), Peel J – Order for interim periodical payments to W in MFPA 1984, Pt 4 application. LSPO in inherent jurisdiction for present fees and unpaid costs and then legal fees at £20,000 pm until the FDR.

Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC [2021] EWHC 2607 (QB) Steyn J with costs judge assessor (29 September 2021) – Lawyers’ bill struck out where it had not been properly signed by solicitors.

 Hussain v Parveen [2021] EWFC 73 (3 September 2021), Arbuthnot J – Hussain’s (H) declaration application that the ‘W’s’ Pakistani ‘divorce’ was not recognised in United Kingdom. Her ‘remarriage’ here was invalid.

Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (A child (No. 2)) [2021] EWHC 2593 (Fam) (28 September 2021), Poole J – Use of the inherent jurisdiction to continue deprivation of this child’s liberty: ‘[12] I fully acknowledge the extreme difficulties faced by all those involved in these decisions, and in caring for LT. This case demonstrates the consequences of the national shortage of secure and other suitable accommodation available for vulnerable children….’

Family courts: the same common law

Family Procedure Rules 2010 as part of civil proceedings

Till April 2011, when the new family proceedings rules came into force, family proceedings – consisting of those proceedings which were assigned to the Family Division – were subject to the general civil proceedings rules (Rules of Supreme Court 1965 and County Court Rules 1981) as adjusted by specific family proceedings rules (eg for children proceedings and for matrimonial causes: that is divorce and ancillary relief (ie money) proceedings).

CPR 1998 swept away the duality of sets of civil proceedings rules; but at some point and for reasons which are obscure the reliance of family proceedings on the new rules was disallowed. Parties to family proceedings were to have their own set of rules; but for this they had to await another ten years, hobbling along procedurally under the old civil proceedings rules. New family proceedings rules there were, and still are; but the ‘new’ FPR 2010 incorporated a variety of specific rules form CPR 1998, sometimes word for word, sometimes with appropriate adjustment. This article looks at some of the changes in the new rules; and at circumstances where CPR 1998 are needed to bolster procedural law 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