AF meaning

In this issue: Practice and procedure Public children Private children Financial provision International children Daily and weekly news alerts New Q&As Useful information Practice and procedure New FPR 2010, PD 27A on bundles—what are the main changes? The sixth Practice Direction Update 2025 unveiled a replacement Practice Direction to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 dealing with court bundles, namely FPR 2010, PD 27A (Family proceedings: court bundles). It takes effect on 2 March 2026 and supersedes the earlier PD 27A in full. Strict adherence to FPR 2010, PD 27A is required to secure uniformity across England and Wales, both in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court, when preparing and lodging bundles. From 2 March 2026, compliance is compulsory for every hearing, with no transitional arrangements. The text has been structurally overhauled and has grown to more than twice its former length. Before 2 March 2026, PD 27A existed as a...

In this issue Practice and procedure Emergency procedures Private children Public children Financial provision Costs International children Daily and weekly alerts New content Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Updated court fees Practitioners should note that, from 8 April 2025, selected court fees in family proceedings increased. See: Updated court fees in family proceedings from April 2025. Also see Practice Note: Current court fees in family proceedings for details of all charges. Family Justice Council Bridget Lindley memorial lecture The Family Justice Council Bridget Lindley memorial lecture, delivered by HHJ Khatun Sapnara on 12 March 2025, is now available to view here. This year’s theme is ‘Diversity and Inclusion in the Family Justice System: Promoting Best Practice in Decision Making’. Emergency procedures Non-molestation orders and transparency (Tooley v Cynthia Tooley) In Tooley v Cynthia Tooley [2025] EWFC 81 (B), an application for non-molestation orders under the...

R (C3) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWHC 34 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The court has made clear that Article 6 ECHR is not engaged where a claimant contests a refusal of consular assistance. The judgment refines the approach to deciding when Article 6 falls away: ask whether the impugned act reflects the exercise of certain categories of public authority prerogatives. If so, either no civil or human right is truly at stake, or any such right is only incidental, and Article 6 will not apply. This, in turn, has significant consequences for the procedural safeguards available to claimants in national security matters. Where Article 6 is not triggered, the individual cannot obtain the higher level of disclosure described in Home Secretary v AF (No.3) [2009] UKHL 28 that would otherwise allow them to provide effective instructions in response to allegations made against them... What was the background?...

This Practice Note outlines the routes for personal injury redress for injured serving and ex-service members, embracing claims founded on statute as well as compensation schemes under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It considers claims arising from incidents in combat operations and training, plus specific conditions including non-freezing cold injury, noise-induced hearing loss, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychiatric harm related to bullying or harassment, and parading injuries. The history and suspension of Crown immunity It is helpful to examine the evolution of the law governing military claims closely. Until 1987, section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (CPA 1947) barred service personnel from pursuing any civil actions against the Crown for death or personal injury attributable to other members within the British Armed Forces. Sections 1 and 2 of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 (CP(AF)A 1987) state that CPA 1947, s 10 is disapplied, but permit the Secretary of State for Defence to re-activate it, from time to time, where...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the date of the disqualification order on 3 July 2020; it is not being maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a CMA Chapter I investigation into suspected price‑fixing of commission rates by estate agents in Somerset (Case 50235). Latest development On 3 July 2020, the High Court affirmed a director disqualification order sought by the CMA against Mr Michael Martin for his role in the cartel. The Court has barred Mr Martin from acting as a director, or from being concerned in the management of a company, for seven years. It also held that Mr Martin contributed to his former company’s breach of competition law; that business owned and operated Gary Berryman Estate Agents in Burnham‑On‑Sea. Parties Annagram Estate Agents Limited (trading as ‘C J Hole’) (CJ Hole) Abbott and Frost Limited (AF) Gary Berryman Estate Agents Ltd (GBEA) and its...