“Opening up the Family courts: Transparency in the Family court and the Court of Protection – speech by the President of the Family Division and President of the Court of Protection on 11/11/2013.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 11th November 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“In this case the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, considered an application for a contra mundum injunction by Staffordshire County Council. He emphasised that the only proper purpose of such an injunction was to protect the child and refused to make an order in the wide terms sought by the Council. As a result, he allowed the publication of video footage and photographs of a baby being removed from its parents.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Law, morality and religion in the family courts (PDF)
Keynote address given by Sir James Munby
The Law Society’s Family Law Annual Conference, 29th October 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“The law has a neutral view of religious belief, the president of the Family Division said today, stressing the secular nature of the judges’ job.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 29th October 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Tim Amos QC and Duncan Brooks of Queen Elizabeth Building, counsel for the respondent, consider the issues and implications of the Court of Appeal’s important judgment in Mittal v Mittal.”
Family Law Week, 20th October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re W (A Child); In re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177; [2013] WLR (D) 384
“Guidance on how the Court of Appeal should approach applications for permission to appeal and appeals arising from decisions of family judges refusing parents leave in accordance with section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the making of adoption orders in relation to their children where such decisions were delivered before the decision in In re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; [2013] WLR (D) 348.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227; [2013] WLR (D) 382
“Once a decision to institute care proceedings had been taken the court became the decision-maker until a full order was made. The local authority was required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That included a description of the services that were available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court. There should be no question of a local authority declining to file its evidence or proposed plans in response to the court’s evaluations. If a local authority made it clear that it would not implement a care plan option about which evidence had been given and which the judge preferred on welfare and proportionality grounds, then in a rare case it could be subjected to challenge in the High Court within the proceedings. In the unlikely event that a local authority declined to abide by a judge’s orders and directions in the future, the judge should inform the local authority’s monitoring officer to make a report to the authority with the intention that the authority was brought back into compliance.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings and Nicola Harries of Baxter Harries Solicitors draw lessons from new guidance in adoption cases, set out by the Court of Appeal in Re B-S in which they acted for the respondent.”
Family Law week, 26th September 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Re A (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104. Appellate judges are obliged to review systemic failings in the family justice system as a whole, not just the merits of the trial judge’s determination, particularly where the process has deprived the parties of their rights to procedural fairness under Articles 6 and 8. Whilst this particular appeal was not ‘a fitting vehicle to enable a root and branch appraisal of the procedural history of this protracted case’, McFarlane LJ has taken the opportunity to give full voice to the ‘profound feeling of failure’ felt by Court on the part of the Family Justice system.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Proposed new guidance recommends that decisions of the family courts should always be published, unless there are compelling reasons against publication. Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, has issued the proposed judiciary guidance to facilitate the ‘need for greater transparency’ in the family courts.”
RPC Privacy Law, 4th September 2013
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
“David Bedingfield, barrister at 4 Paper Buildings, sets the latest reforms relating to expert evidence in their historical context and considers the dilemmas which expert evidence has long presented to the courts.”
Family Law Week, 29th August 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“With the legal fees for a ‘simple’ divorce in London now at £2,500, DIY divorce websites are reporting a sharp rise in the number of couples using their services.”
LegalVoice, 19th August 2013
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
“The government is introducing measures which it says will take pressure off the courts and tribunals, and in the case of family law disputes fill the gap left by cuts to legal aid. But many practitioners say the policies have not been properly thought through – and may actually hinder the use of mediation.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 12th August 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in July.”
Family Law Week, 7th August 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“In HB, PB, and OB –v- London Borough of Croydon [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam) Cobb J had to consider whether or not to make an order that a Local Authority which had been directed to file a section 37 report, and whose failure to do so properly had led to wasted costs, should pay those wasted costs of aborted days of hearing. The power to make such a costs order was in the discretion of the court (Senior Courts Act 1981 s51(1)) and, by reference to FPR 2010 28.1, the court could make such order as it thought just. The Local Authority was sufficiently closed connected with the litigation, and its failings were so serious, as to justify making what the court was urged to regard as an exceptional order.”
Sovereign Chambers, 19th July 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“A professional man registered as a sperm donor on a website and advertised his willingness to participate in a ‘breeding party, ie a male-dominated orgy designed to get a woman pregnant’, a High Court judge said today.”
The Independent, 26th Juyl 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Dr Karen Broadhurst of Manchester University explains the findings of a recently completed pilot involving family court advisers in public law pre-proceedings practice.”
Family Law Week, 10th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Christopher Rank, barrister, of Cornwall Street Chambers considers expert evidence, rule 25.1 of the FPR and The President’s recent guidance in Re H-L (A Child).”
Family Law Week, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“David Burrows continues his review of how LASPO has influenced the funding landscape of family litigation.”
New Law Journal, 20th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025