You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

Paterson v Henshaw (2005)

The judge's finding of adverse possession of land could not be faulted legally or factually, but additional evidence about a boundary of that land, adduced by the respondent on appeal, made it necessary to remit the matter to the judge.

Manchester City Council v Higgins [2005] EWCA Civ 1423

A judge suspending a possession order had failed to adequately take into account the effect of anti-social behaviour on the tenant's neighbours as required by the Housing Act 1985, s 85A. In the circumstances, in the absence of any remorse or well founded expectation of improvement, an immediate possession order was necessary and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8 in order to meet the need to protect the rights and freedoms of the neighbours.

Kent County Council v G [2005] UKHL 68

Directions under the Children Act 1989, s 38(6) could only be made if they could properly be described as being with regard to the medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment "of the child", rather than if they involved, as in the instant case, a programme focused in substance on the child's parent and the improvement of her parenting skills.

R v Slocombe [2005] EWCA Crim 2297

For the purpose of determining the length of any notification period for a sex offender, the period of detention that an offender was liable to serve within the meaning in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 131(a) was to be treated not as a reference to the entire term of a detention and training order including any supervision period but only to the period of detention and training itself.

Re H (A child) [2005] EWCA Civ 1404

An order allowing a father contact with his child was set aside where the judge had operated with an imperfect recollection of findings of fact in a previous hearing, expressed distorted views not based on the evidence before him, failed to direct himself in relation to the principles set out in L (A Child), Re [2001] 2 WLR 339 and ignored the guidelines on contact cases prepared by the Children Act Sub-Committee.

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc (2005)

Where parties agreed security for costs in a certain sum, and agreed that that sum would not be increased even if there was a material change of circumstances, the court retained a residual discretion to vary the order where there were wholly exceptional circumstances.