The Practical Lawyer

The wife (W) successfully appealed an order made against the husband (H) in respect of a second charge over commercial property owned by her. Apart from this charge, the assets were divided more-or-less equally.

The judge decided the bank was unlikely to agree to the release of the security and H was at risk of financial ruin if forced to sell the property to pay off the debt. The judge ordered that H would use his best endeavours to remove the charge over W’s property.

It is undesirable for children to give evidence in care proceedings and particular justification is necessary before doing so. In a recent case, the father (F) unsuccessfully appealed an order in care proceedings that a 14-year-old girl (C) should not be called to give oral evidence relating to alleged sexual abuse against him. Five children were involved in care proceedings, one of which was C, who had earlier retracted similar allegations.

The father (F) unsuccessfully applied for permission to appeal a decision allowing the mother (M) to relocate to Slovakia with their two sons. The trial judge had also made a shared residence order relating to the two children, dividing the children’s time between F and M.

An application to revoke an adoption placement order cannot be sought if the child has already been placed for adoption. A mother (M) had made an unsuccessful application for judicial review after a late attempt by M to revoke a placement order in adoption proceedings.

H applied for an order debarring W’s solicitors from acting for her on the basis that the senior partner had, whilst at another firm, once acted for him in financial proceedings against W. This dated back to 2000, but since then H and W had been reconciled and separated several times. When the marriage finally broke down in 2009, W instructed the firm where the solicitor in question was senior partner, although not her solicitor in this matter. The firm still had the old files in their possession. H unsuccessfully requested that the firm cease to act for her.

The CMEC has assumed responsibility for the CSA although its powers are not yet fully operational. But practitioners should note that new child maintenance clients will continue to be dealt with by the CSA until the new formula for calculation under the gross income scheme comes in. Existing clients can get further assistance from the Child Maintenance Options offered by the CMEC.

H successfully appealed an order where periodical payments were not discounted in view of W’s later alleged co-habitation. H and W had separated after nine years together and W moved home to Dublin with their daughter to live in the house awarded to her as part of the financial settlement.

A judge was correct in refusing a mother (M) permission to obtain expert evidence from a paediatrician and a geneticist in respect of bone fragility. The judge that heard the care proceedings involving M’s children had already heard extensive medical evidence in the case. M argued that expert evidence was necessary in the absence of independent expert evidence before the court.

Post-nuptial agreements are valid and can be enforced, and the nearer to separation that a post-nuptial agreement is signed, the better. In a recent case, the PC stated it was not prepared to reverse the longstanding rule that pre-nuptial agreements were contrary to public policy. However, the PC held there was nothing to prevent a married couple entering into a contractual financial arrangement governing their life together and that it should have legal effect if the terms had been entered into by deed after taking legal advice.

Useful guidelines have been set out by the CA in relation to applications under s91(14) CA 1989. On disposing of an application for an order under this Act, the court ‘may order that no application for an order under the Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the Court’.