Allowing in part an appeal against the refusal to allow experts to be instructed in care proceedings. The CA considered the new test under rule 25.1 FPR 2010 concerning expert evidence. The CA held that ‘necessary’ means necessary. Munby LJ expanded this quoting from Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent)  EWCA CIV 435 which holds necessary has ‘the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable.
The court allowed in part a wife’s appeal against orders dismissing her attempt to rely on documents and statements made by the husband in complex proceedings to enforce a financial remedy order. The Court considered the difference between penal and non-penal enforcement regimes and ordered that documents previously disclosed by the husband but not his statements were admissible in Debtor’s act proceedings.
The CA allowed the appeal of a husband against the refusal to strike out a claim by his ex- wife for ancillary relief in respect of a 3 year marriage where the parties had separated 30 years ago and divorced 19 years ago. The court below had refused the strike out application and granted the wife an A v A order to finance her costs. The CA held that the application fell into the rare category of cases where strike out under FPR rule 4.4 (1) (b) was appropriate as the wife had no real prospect of succeeding in her claim.
The Supreme Court (Hale SCJ dissenting) dismissed an appeal by two parents against the making of final care orders with a view to the adoption of their child. The court held that the test for an appeal court to apply to both whether the threshold was crossed and whether a Care Order should have been made was simply whether the determination was ‘wrong’.