Relocation: C v D  EWHC 335 (FAM)
An Australian mother and French father met in US and they had their first child there. Their second child was born in the UK. Both parents ran successful businesses which are based in UK but travelled extensively for work. After the breakdown of their relationship, they agreed that the care of the children will be shared equally. The father sought to change the arrangement of equal share when he became engaged to a woman living in New York, to provide for 2 week blocks of time with each parent but agreed to the mother's proposal of 20 days with her and 10 days with the father on a trial basis. That had been in place since September 2009. The mother began a relationship with a man based in Florida and sought leave to remove the two children to Florida. The father opposed this. The mother's application for leave to remove the children to Florida was refused. There was a shared care arrangement which was working well and the children's contact with their father would be substantially reduced if they move to Florida. Such a change from the quantity and quality of the shared care arrangement would not be in the children's best interests.
If you would like to read more on this, please search for the case in Balli
B v B.Financial Orders docx.docx
Judgment of Mr David Salter sitting as a deputy judge of the Family Division of the High Court in a financial remedies case where the parties had been married for 15 years and involving issues of pre-marital wealth, the sharing principle, reattribution of assets rather than setting aside earlier dispositions and containing an important reminder of the correct method for valuing pensions in payment.
Please click on the link above to read the summary of the case.
Jones v Kernott  UKSC 53: (This is a recent case law handed down in May 2011 by the Supreme Court in Relocation permenently by the mother).
Supreme Court: appeal as to the correct approach to calculating beneficial interests in property where the legal title to the property is held in joint names by an unmarried couple but there is no express statement of how it is to be shared. Principles stated by the Court. Held: the parties intentions as to ownership had changed after their separation. Appeal allowed.
Background to the appeal:
This case is regarding the correct approach to calculating beneficial interests in property where the legal title to the property is held in joint names by an unmarried couple but there is no express statement of how it is to be shared.
Ms Jones and Mr Kernott met in 1981. They had two children together. In 1985 they purchased a house in Thundersley, Essex in their joint names. The price paid was £30,000 with a £6,000 deposit paid exclusively by the proceeds of sale from Ms Jones's previous home. No declaration was made as to how the beneficial interest in the property was to be held. The mortgage and upkeep on the house was shared between them. In 1986 they jointly took out a loan of £2000 to build an extension. Mr Kernott did some of the work himself. The relationship deteriorated and in 1993 Mr Kernott moved out.
Read the full case here:
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 578
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON:
9 November 2011
Heard on 4 May 2011
The case of Sharland v Sharland  UKSC 60
Please read the case under News update and events. If you would like to read more on this, please search for the case in Balli