Significant Family Law Cases

AB v CD (2019)

Emphasised the impact of coercive control on family court decisions, broadening domestic abuse definitions.

A father was denied contact after his ex-partner provided evidence of years of emotional manipulation and control.

Barder v Barder (1987)

Established the "Barder event" principle, allowing a financial order to be overturned if significant unforeseen events occur soon after judgment.

A husband successfully appealed against a financial order when his wife tragically took her own life shortly after settlement.

F v F (2017)

Recognised that financial settlements can be revisited if one party intentionally hides or undervalues assets.

A wife successfully challenged an unfair settlement after proving her ex-husband had hidden business assets.

K v K (2022)

Considered the impact of cryptocurrency assets in divorce settlements, marking the first major UK ruling on digital asset division.

A spouse sought a share of undisclosed cryptocurrency holdings, leading to a groundbreaking ruling on financial disclosure in digital wealth.

Miller v Miller McFarlane v McFarlane (2006)

Confirmed the principles of needs, compensation, and sharing in financial divorce settlements.

Mr. Miller's short marriage ended, but the court awarded Mrs. Miller a significant sum, reinforcing the principle that financial awards are not solely based on contribution.

R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development (2018)

Led to the legalization of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples.

A heterosexual couple challenged the law preventing them from entering a civil partnership, leading to equal rights for all couples.

Re A (Children) (2000)

Highlighted that courts must consider the child's wishes and feelings alongside their welfare when making residence orders.

A teenager wished to live with her father despite social service concerns, and the court took her wishes into account.

Re C (Children) (2012)

Reinforced that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in cross-border disputes.

A mother wanted to relocate with her child abroad against the father's wishes, leading to a ruling prioritizing the child's best interests.

Re D (A Child) (2019)

Stressed that courts must consider children's views directly in complex family disputes.

A teenager's objection to a custody ruling was upheld after an independent advocate presented his perspective.

Re F (2015)

Stressed that religious upbringing conflicts between separated parents must be handled in the child's best interests.

Parents of different faiths disagreed over their child's religious education, leading the court to prioritise the child's autonomy.

Re H (Parental Responsibility) (1998)

Clarified when unmarried fathers should be granted parental responsibility.

A father who had not been involved in his child's life sought parental responsibility, leading to criteria being set for such applications.

Re J (A Child) (2013)

Addressed habitual residence in international child abduction cases.

A father took his child abroad without the mother's consent, leading to a ruling that habitual residence is determined by the child's integration into a country.

Re L, Re V, Re M, Re H (2000)

Ensured courts assess the risk of domestic violence before allowing unsupervised child contact.

A father with a history of domestic abuse sought contact with his child, leading to a ruling that courts must assess the risk to the child.

Sharp v Sharp (2017)

Established that in short marriages, assets do not always need to be equally split.

Mrs. Sharp argued against equal division of wealth in a short marriage, leading to a ruling that pre-marriage assets could be treated differently.

White v White (2000)

Established fairness in financial settlements, ensuring no discrimination between breadwinner and homemaker.

Mrs. White, a farmer's wife, sought an equal division of assets in divorce, leading to a precedent that courts should consider equality as a starting point.

Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow (2011)

Expanded the definition of domestic violence to include emotional and psychological abuse.

A woman sought housing assistance due to emotional abuse, leading to a landmark ruling that domestic violence is not limited to physical harm.

Baker v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2012)

Ruled that children's best interests should be paramount in immigration family cases.

A father facing deportation argued that his British children needed him, leading to a ruling strengthening family rights in immigration law.

D (A Child) (2016)

Ruled that a child's return under the Hague Convention can be refused if there is grave risk of psychological harm.

A mother who fled an abusive relationship successfully argued against returning her child to the father abroad.

H-N and Others (Children) (2021)

Confirmed that coercive control and emotional abuse must be properly considered in family cases.

A mother alleged coercive control in a custody case, leading to the recognition that abuse can extend beyond physical violence.

L v L (2007)

Confirmed that non-molestation orders should be granted based on the applicant's fear of violence, not just past incidents.

A woman was granted an order against her ex-partner despite no recent assaults, as she feared further violence.

Owens v Owens (2018)

Demonstrated the difficulty of proving unreasonable behaviour in divorce cases, prompting the introduction of no-fault divorce.

Mrs. Owens was denied a divorce despite citing her husband's unreasonable behaviour, highlighting the restrictive nature of fault-based divorce laws.

Radmacher v Granatino (2010)

Held that prenuptial agreements can be legally binding if fair and freely entered into.

A wealthy heiress and her ex-husband disputed a prenuptial agreement, leading to a ruling that prenups should be upheld unless unfair.

Re B (A Child) (2013)

Confirmed that removing a child from parental care must be justified by compelling evidence of harm.

A mother fought against the removal of her child by social services, leading to clarification that removal should only occur in extreme cases.

Re D (A Child) (2019)

Emphasized the need to address parental alienation in family disputes.

A father claimed his child was being alienated against him, leading to a ruling that courts must intervene to prevent manipulation of children.

Re E (Children) (2011)

Ruled that the Hague Convention should not automatically return a child if there is a risk of harm.

A mother fled with her children citing abuse, leading to the recognition that the convention must consider risk factors.

Re G (Children) (2006)

Established that biological and social parenting are both important considerations in custody cases.

A lesbian couple's dispute over child custody led to a ruling that a non-biological parent can have significant parental rights.

Re J (2021)

Stated that parents must not manipulate children into resisting contact with the other parent.

A mother was found to have influenced her child against the father, resulting in a change of custody.

Re L (2019)

Confirmed that the habitual residence of a newborn is determined by their primary carer's intentions.

A mother who had given birth in the UK contested a Hague Convention return order by arguing that the child had no settled residence abroad.

Re X (Parental Order) (2015)

Clarified legal parenthood in international surrogacy agreements.

A British couple sought legal recognition as parents after using a surrogate abroad, setting a precedent for international surrogacy cases.

Vince v Wyatt (2015)

Confirmed that financial claims can still be pursued many years after a divorce if no final settlement was made.

Ms. Wyatt sought a financial settlement 19 years after divorce, leading to a ruling that claims remain open unless legally dismissed.

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX (2020)

Allowed a woman to claim damages for the cost of overseas surrogacy due to medical negligence.

A woman was left infertile due to a hospital's negligence, leading to a ruling that she could recover surrogacy costs.