Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed a mother and aunt’s bid to control funeral arrangements, holding the deceased had wished to be cremated and that the children had priority.
The court found the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and wrongfully retained in Costa Rica by the father. The respondent’s failure to engage, the risk of onward abduction to a non-Hague country, the emotional harm to the children, and the need for swift action constituted good reasons to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and order their immediate return, rather than await the outcome of Hague Convention proceedings.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that it could order a further examination under CPR Part 71 to enforce compliance with an earlier order, and that service on Brecher was valid.
Deutsche Bank AG v Vik [2026] EWCA Civ 581 (12 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a further Part 71 examination order could be made to enforce compliance with an earlier, properly served order despite non-compliance.
HF, KF and LF (No 2)(Children; Inherent Jurisdiction; Return Order), Re [2026] EWHC 1035 (Fam) (01 May 2026)
The High Court ordered the return of three children from Dubai to England, finding that the father’s wrongful retention had harmed their relationship with their mother.
The High Court ordered the return of three children to England from Dubai under its inherent jurisdiction, finding their welfare required return.
The High Court ordered the return of a child abducted to Nigeria, exercised its inherent jurisdiction, found contempt, and allowed publication of the family’s names.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has no inherent jurisdiction to revoke a valid adoption order on welfare grounds. The appeal was dismissed.
Given the severity and irreversibility of RN’s brain and brain stem injury, his total dependence on invasive ventilation, lack of meaningful awareness or purposeful movement, ongoing pain and suffering from medical interventions, and the unanimous medical evidence that continued life-sustaining treatment confers no benefit and only prolongs suffering, it is not in RN’s best interests for life-sustaining treatment to continue. The presumption in favour of preserving life is rebutted on these facts.
Source excerpt
An application for permission to publish information about Children Act 1989 proceedings heard in private is a matter invoking the inherent jurisdiction and is reserved to the High Court under current statutory provisions, rules, and President’s Guidance. The Family Court does not have jurisdiction to make such transparency orders outside the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
Source excerpt
Explore more
