In an important case in respect of family placements during the course of LA involvement the CA upheld the judgment of Black J that a child placed with her grandmother but with no public law order was a ‘looked after child’ and that therefore the grandmother was entitled to a fostering allowance from the relevant LA.

The CA allowed an appeal in respect of nullity proceedings. A significant disputed element in the hearing below was a certificate which puported to be a Ugandan marriage certificate. The CA held that given that this was on the face of it authenticated by various Ugandan authorities it should have been presumed to be valid and the burden fall on the party seeking to show it was not valid. The matter was remitted for re-hearing as these issues had not been considered below.

The Court granted permission for an Applicant to issue a Petition for Nullity without having to file a marriage certificate in the context of an Islamic marriage. No evidence was heard and the issue of whether the parties believed a valid marriage under English law had taken place was not decided.

The court gave a summary of case law in respect of overseas trust assets before awarding a W the equivalent of £2,957,269 made up of a Housing settlement, pension, Lump sum, her own assets and a new settlement in respect of a charge on the FMH. The Court deviated from the clean break principle stating “Fairness is not to be sacrificed on the altar of finality”. The court warned the Trustees and H that there were sufficient non trust assets to produce the same results by other means and the order was not be be perfected until their stance had been ascertained.

The CA upheld a judgment of Black J where she found on the facts that a child was accomodated with her grandmother pursuant to a placement under s.23 (2) CA 1989 rather than s.23(6). This was relevant to the financial support to which she was entitled. A caution is expressed by the Court however that the case was decided under the law at the time and these provisions have subsequently been amended by CYPA 2008.

The Supreme Court considered the correct approach to calculating beneficial interests in a property where the legal title is held in joint names. The Supreme Court agreed with the original county court judgment holding that Mr Kernott’s share in the property had crystallised in 1995. The decision which was unanimous but with Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson reaching the same result as Lady Hale and Lord Walker (who gave the lead judgment) and Lord Collins but by a different route. The Supreme Court summary can be found here

The CA allowed a Father’s appeal against an order made in the High Court limiting the disclosure to be made to him within Care Proceedings. The Mother had applied to adduce a psychiatric report but had sought to disclose this only to the court and other parties. Limited disclosure of certain passages only had been ordered in the High Court. The CA ordered the whole report to be disclosed.

The CA allowed a Mother’s appeal against an order under the Hague Convention that 2 children be summarily returned to Australia. Notwithstanding the Mother’s effective admission that she had ‘strung’ the father along and caused him to believe that she would return with the children the CA held that the Judge had misdirected themselves in respect of the children’s habitual residence.

Elizabeth Watson having taken legal advice in respect of the above judgments applied to purge her contempt and her sentence of nine months was suspended (on terms of no further breach) for a period of two years allowing her to be immediately released. The judgment in Harris v Harris was then drawn to the Court’s attention which is authority for the proposition that the court had no power to impose a suspended sentence on an application to purge contempt. Ms Watson was therefore freed without conditions but with a stern warning as to the consequences of any future breach.

In relation to the same events as in the above case the President found Elizabeth Watson to be in contempt of court for breaching the reporting restrictions order imposed by Baker J and sentenced her to 9 months imprisonment.