header-logo header-logo

06 December 2013
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family law

Constantinides v Constantinides [2013] EWHC 3688 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 336 (Nov)

Proceedings for the enforcement of a maintenance order which were registered in a magistrates’ court were not automatically ‘family proceedings’ so as to be the subject of the FPR, although by virtue of s 65(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980  the court “may if it thinks fit order that [they]...be treated as family proceedings...” Section 93(6) of the 1980 Act and s 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 had to be construed and applied so as to have the same practical result and effect. Accordingly, a magistrates’ court could not find, for the purposes of s 93(6), that there had been “wilful refusal or culpable neglect” unless it was satisfied that the person in default “has or has had...the means to pay...” A magistrates’ court could not lawfully commit a person to prison for default in paying a maintenance order, or a maintenance order which had been registered in that court, unless it was satisfied that the payer had, or had had, the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll