OJ (Applicant) v RB (Respondent)

Case name – OJ (Applicant) v RB (Respondent) – IN THE MATTER OF THE  SUPREME COURT ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT

Heard at the – Royal Court of Justice, Strand, London,  WC2A 2LL

We represented the Respondent – Father in the above-mentioned Family matter that involves child abduction – firstly to Morocco and subsequently to Latvia.

The High Court ordered the return of the child – being a Ward of the Court – back to the jurisdiction of England and Wales from Latvia and after she was initially abducted to Morocco and returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales from Morocco.

We made an application on behalf of our client –  to the Courts in Latvia through the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (ICACI) and was successful since both the Riga Regional Court (High Court) on 28 April 2016 upheld the decision of Riga City District Court (Lower Court) dated 16 March, 2016, ordering that the child be returned to the UK within 30 days.

The child was successfully returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales as ordered.

F v PB

A 68-year old lady, hit by a reversing van sustained injuries to her legs. She instructed DCK Solicitors on this matter and having seen a private physio-therapist, she won an out of court compensation. Subject to CFA.

O & ANOR v C & ANOR (2014)

[2014] EWHC 4729 (QB)

QBD (Males J) 23/10/2014

LANDLORD AND TENANT

MITIGATION : PENALTIES : POSSESSION : RENT ARREARS : TENANCY DEPOSIT SCHEMES : HOUSING ACT 2004 s.213, s.214(4)

A judge had been entitled to regard the question of culpability as the most relevant factor in determining what order to make when setting a penalty for failure to place a rent deposit in an appropriate scheme under the Housing Act 2004 s.213 and to find that the culpability in the instant case fell at the lowest end of the scale.

The appellant tenants appealed against a decision, in an action for possession and arrears of rent brought against them by the respondent landlords, that a fine imposed under the Housing Act 2004 s.213 should be at the lowest end of the scale.

Continue reading “O & ANOR v C & ANOR (2014)”

GOA v SSHD : EAT v SSHD (2011)

CA (Civ Div) (Lord Neuberger MR, Maurice Kay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ) 12/05/2011

IMMIGRATION – EUROPEAN UNION

A divorced spouse had to establish that he had the right of permanent residence before the question whether, notwithstanding the divorce, it had been retained by virtue of Directive 2004/38 art.13 could be determined.

The appellants (G and T) in conjoined appeals appealed against decisions of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) rejecting their applications for permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

Continue reading “GOA v SSHD : EAT v SSHD (2011)”