Bulletin no 90
Butterworths Family and Child Law Bulletin
Fam LS 2005.90
Bulletin editor
Jonathan Montgomery, BA, LLM
Professor of law, University of Southampton
Butterworths Family and Child Law Bulletin provides an immediate updating service for the main text of Butterworths Family Law Service and Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children. The Bulletin is published every month and sent to subscribers to those publications.
References to BFLS and CHM above each case are to the relevant paragraphs in Butterworths Family Law Service and Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children.
Parentage
Former non-marital partner not father under HFEA 1990
Re R (a child) [2005] UKHL 33, [2005] 4 All ER 433
BFLS 3A[320.1]; CHM 1[376]
Re R (a child) [2005] UKHL 33, [2005] 4 All ER 433 concerned the status provisions under s 28(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That section provides for the partner of a woman who has been assisted to conceive to be recognised as the child’s legal father where the placing in her of sperm or eggs was carried out by a licensed person providing services for her and the man “together”.
On the facts of the case, six and a half years elapsed between the beginning of treatment and the pregnancy. Consent forms had been signed by the mother (D) and her then partner (B) about thirty and nine months respectively before she became pregnant.
The parties had separated by the time the embryo was implanted. When the child was born, B applied for contact and parental responsibility orders. The House of Lords approved the Court of Appeal’s view that the time at which the court should apply the test whether the couple were being treated together was the time at which the embryo was being placed into the woman. By this stage the couple were no longer together, and therefore the section did not operate to make B the legal father.
Comment: The difficulty in applying the legal test comes from the fact that the physical aspects of treatment concern only the woman. Consequently, it is difficult to identify any certain form of proof that she was being “treated together with a man”.
Under s 28(2) the statute seeks certainty by assessing the relationship between the parties in terms of marital status, which can be proved with certainty.
Section 28(3) tries to provide for the establishment of paternity in the less clear-cut cases of non-marital relationships. It does so by looking at the relationship between the two adults and the treatment, rather than that between the adults themselves.
Lord Hope indicated that in some ways the House of Lords’ decision could be seen as adopting the service providers’ understanding of the situation as the normal guide to the application of the test, in that their records would be the best guide. The records of both parties’ consent would indicate the necessary joint enterprise. However, those records would not take precedence over additional evidence if that established, as here, that the relationship was no longer in existence at the relevant time.
Contact
Regular contact expected where baby removed, but local authority resources required to facilitate were relevant consideration
Re S (a child) (care proceedings: contact) (2005) Times, 22 September, FD
BFLS 3A[3323]; CHM 1[651]
Re S (a child) (care proceedings: contact) (2005) Times, 22 September, FD concerned contact with a one month old baby who was the subject of an interim care order. The local authority appealed against an order from the family proceedings court that it should facilitate contact for four hours a day Monday to Friday and two hours a day on Saturday and Sunday.
Bodey J held that the practicalities of arranging contact had to be borne in mind when the order was considered, including the extent to which unreasonable burdens would be imposed on the foster carer’s ability to sustain it and/or on the resources of the local authority to facilitate it. Bearing in mind that the order was intended to run only for a few weeks, it was not beyond the broad ambit of discretion vested in the family proceedings court.
Comment: Bodey J noted the possibility of misinterpreting comments of Munby J in Re M [2003] 2 FLR 171, 183 that where a baby is removed the expectation would be for contact on a “regular and generous basis… driven by the needs of the family not stunted by lack of resources. Typically… contact most days of the week for lengthy period”. These were not intended to imply that daily contact including weekends was necessarily required, nor should they be taken to establish legal principles (rather than a guide to what would be expected to be in the child’s interests), nor did they imply that resource considerations were wholly irrelevant.
Public law proceedings
Second expert should usually be instructed in non-accidental injury or unexplained death cases
W v Oldham MBC (2005) Times, 7 November, CA
BFLS 3A[4629]; CHM 1[1345]
W v Oldham MBC (2005) Times, 7 November, CA held that the court should be slow to deny permission for a second expert witness in cases concerning non-accidental injuries to a child or an infant death without a pathologically ascertained cause. In such cases, medical evidence may become pivotal and would be difficult to challenge if there were only one expert opinion.
Comment: This is a natural response to the concerns exposed about expert evidence by the Sally Clark trial and others. Those cases had shown that there was a risk of injustice in unchallenged medical evidence, even where judges and experts were highly experienced. In the light of this, parents are entitled to a second opinion.
Police powers not appropriate where EPO in force
Langley v Liverpool CC (2005) Times, 19 October, CA
BFLS 3A[3911]; CHM 1[1180]
In Langley v Liverpool CC (2005) Times, 19 October the Court of Appeal held that where there was an emergency protection order in force under s 44 of the Children Act 1989, it was not appropriate to use the police power of removal under s 46. Parliament had intended that, wherever practical, removal should be authorised by court order.
Consequently, a police officer should not use the s 46 power when he knew that an EPO was in force unless there were compelling reasons to do so.
Comment: This is an unsurprising decision, given the general principle enshrined in the Children Act 1989, and driven in part by human rights requirements, that removal of a child from his family is a serious matter that should be overseen by the court.
However, it is unclear from this short report why the police wished to use their own powers. Nor is there an explanation of the type of reason that might be sufficiently compelling to justify use of s 46 even where an EPO is in place.
Adoption
Contact unusual where prospective adopters do not support
Re R (a child) (Adoption: Contact) (2005) Times, 15 September, CA
BFLS 3A[4347]; CHM 3[313]
In Re R (a child) (Adoption: Contact) (2005) Times, 15 September the Court of Appeal considered a case in which the 17-year-old sister (K) of a child (L) living with prospective adopters applied to have her contact with L maintained.
She had formerly had weekly contact and the prospective adopters had been specially selected because of their willingness to allow the contact to continue. However, they subsequently reached the view that L had not settled easily and was affected by the contact visits. They suggested that direct contact be reduced to one visit a year, with four indirect contacts. K pointed out that she was the child’s only blood relative and that L had a right to family life through reasonable contact. She proposed that three times a year would be appropriate. The judge had refused K leave to apply. The Court of Appeal accepted that K’s submissions were powerful but found that the judge’s decision should not be interfered with.
Given that the application was made within adoption proceedings, the court was bound to bear in mind that it would be unusual to make a contact order where the adopters were not in favour. Here, their opposition, on the basis of disruption to L, was not unreasonable.
Comment: Counsel for K argued that the judge had peremptorily dismissed the application without a proper investigation of the circumstances. However, the essence of the application for leave under s 10(9) is that the consideration should be of whether the case is sufficiently plausible for a full investigation to be appropriate, not necessarily for the full facts to be explored.
Financial provision
Short marriages—relevance of responsibility for breakdown
Miller v Miller [2005] EWCA Civ 984, [2005] 2 FCR 713
BFLS 4A[793]
Miller v Miller [2005] EWCA Civ 984, [2005] 2 FCR 713, concerned the application of the principles established in White v White [2000] 3 FCR 555 to a short marriage. The parties had begun their relationship in 1995, but were married only in 2000. The husband left the wife in 2003 to pursue a relationship with a different woman.
Following an unsuccessful FRD hearing, the ancillary relief claim proceeded to trial with a recital that the wife would not rely on the MCA 1973, s 25(2)(g). Nicholas Mostyn QC, for the wife, contended that she should receive £7.2 million (37.5% of the increase of the husband’s fortune during the marriage—the matrimonial acquest).
There was some dispute over the value of shares (£20m–£14m) and over whether they should properly be regarded as acquired during the marriage or merely vested after the marriage but earned earlier. The husband contended that the wife should be returned to her position prior to the marriage through a lump sum of £500k to purchase a flat and £120k to enable her to work her way back to her former level of seniority over three years. He therefore argued that his offer of £1.3 million was generous.
Singer J made an award of £5m, accepting the wife’s account that the husband had caused the breakdown of the marriage. The husband appealed, contending that the judge had erred (a) in allowing the wife to raise the cause of the marriage breakdown (given the recital following the FDR), (b) in concluding that the husband was to blame and that this shielded the wife from the husband’s reliance on the shortness of the marriage, and (c) that he was plainly wrong to rest his award on the legitimate expectation that the wife would live at a higher standard of living than she had enjoyed prior to the marriage on a long-term basis.
On the first point, Thorpe LJ refused to accept that the wife’s declaration overrode or circumscribed the court’s discretion to investigate the circumstances of the case. He pointed out that the proceedings were quasi-inquisitorial and the judge was never confined by what the parties chose to put in or exclude from evidence. The judge was therefore entitled to consider the evidence, and also to reach the conclusion that he did about the husband’s part in the marriage breakdown.
The Court of Appeal rejected the suggestion that, in short marriages, the court should seek merely to put the economically weaker spouse back on their feet. That principle (drawn from Robertson v Robertson (1982) 4 FLR 387) had been developed when the ‘reasonable needs’ approach was dominant and was no longer appropriate (see also Foster v Foster [2003] EWCA Civ 565).
The judge had approached the instant case on the basis that, taken in context, the wife had a legitimate expectation of a higher standard of living than she had enjoyed prior to the marriage. In Thorpe LJ’s view, that was a fact-dependent conclusion rather than a legal principle to be extracted for application in subsequent cases. Wall LJ took a similar view, but also drew attention to the husband’s considerable wealth and suggested that it was not best analysed as a "matrimonial acquest’" case. Rather, in all the circumstances of the case, an award of £5m (of which £2.7 was a lump sum and £2.3m the London home) against a husband worth at least £17.5m should not be regarded as excessive or disproportionate.
Comment: While this case has attracted much interest and raised concerns about the continued confusion of approach, it should not be forgotten that it turned largely on assessment of the range of discretion available to the judge. Thorpe LJ indicated that the award was at the top end of the range that was permissible, but that it was within that range and should not be disturbed. He also regarded the facts as highly unusual.
In such cases of high asset, short and childless marriages, the trial judge’s discretion was very wide indeed (making appeals unlikely to succeed). In such cases, the Court of Appeal seems to have regarded the circumstances of the breakdown as relevant. In order to see whether it is reasonable for the husband to claim relief from extensive post-divorce financial responsibilities on the basis of a short marriage, it was necessary to ensure that his hands were "clean" otherwise an advantage would be gained from his own misconduct.
Here, the wife was clearly committed to the future of the marriage right up to its last few months (following her miscarriage, they both remained hopeful of having a child), but the husband left her immediately after disclosing his new relationship. However, the Court of Appeal did not consider that this type of circumstance should be seen as falling within the scope of s 25(2)(g)—conduct that it was inequitable to disregard. Rather, the consideration seems to have been placed within the terms of s 25(2)(a)—the resources of the parties. It remains to be seen whether Thorpe LJ’s suggestion that this decision should not be seen as a precedent for legal principles will confine it to the footnotes of the development of financial provision post-White, or whether it will generate greater interest in the circumstances of marital breakdowns and more extensive investigation of those facts.
Jurisdiction under MCA 1973 does not continue after death
Harb v Aziz (2005) Times, 21 November, CA
BFLS 4A[515]
In Harb v Aziz (2005) Times, 21 November the Court of Appeal held that the death of a party to unresolved proceedings under s 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 brought those proceedings to an end.
Section 27 provided a remedy only during the joint lives of the parties. The main substantive point in issue had been a claim by King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that he held sovereign immunity against matrimonial proceedings. The appeal could not proceed after his death as it was not a cause of action under s 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 that would survive against the estate.
Neither art 8 nor art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights availed the applicant, as they could not create substantive financial rights and could not extend such rights beyond those defined in the 1973 Act.
Comment: While the appeal against the finding that sovereign immunity extended to give King Fahd protection against suit under the MCA 1973 did not involve a substantive issue that would affect many litigants, this decision may expose a significant lacuna in the law. The normal mechanism for protecting people against the death of someone on whom they are dependant during proceedings against them is an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
However, that is only available where the deceased person was domiciled in England and Wales. Thus, where a spouse who is domiciled overseas dies during proceedings, there would appear to be no jurisdiction to provide a remedy.
Youth justice
Detention of young persons at Her Majesty’s pleasure must be kept under review
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51, (2005) 155 NLJ 1415
CHM 7[754]
In R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51, (2005) 155 NLJ 1415, the House of Lords held that where a young person had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure before 30 November 2000, with minimum terms that had been set by the chief justice and which had not expired, then their case should be kept under continuing review.
The secretary of state had refused to review the term when requested to do so in 2002 by a young person convicted of murder. He argued that the decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables [1997] 3 All ER 97 applied only to cases where the minimum term had been set by the executive, and had no application to cases (such as this one) where it had been set by the judge.
On judicial review, the House of Lords disagreed. It was an important feature of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure that it should be subject to continuing review. Any minimum term could only be provisional since such continuing review might call for it to be varied downwards.
Comment: Their lordships noted that there were 114 people detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure on sentences passed before 30 November 2000 when s 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 introduced the new process of review by the parole board. The ruling ensures that their situation is regularly reviewed for clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress as might reasonably be judged to call for reconsideration of the minimum term.
Medical treatment
Patients cannot demand clinically inappropriate treatment
R (Burke) v GMC [2005] EWCA Civ 1003
BFLS 3A[877.1]; CHM 1[896.1]
In R (Burke) v GMC [2005] EWCA Civ 1003 the Court of Appeal allowed the General Medical Council’s appeal against Leslie Burke’s challenge to their guidance on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment. Mr Burke had argued that the guidance paid insufficient regard to his right to require such treatment. His application had succeeded before Munby J.
The Court of Appeal was critical of the judge’s wide-ranging judgment, indicating that he had gone far further than was required to decide the immediate issue. They noted that Mr Burke was unlikely to have been denied the care he wished to receive under the terms of the guidance. They found that doctors would have a duty to take reasonable steps to keep a patient alive where the patient has made it clear that it is his wish to be kept alive (para [34]).
Deliberately interrupting such treatment against the express wishes of a patient to be kept alive, with the intention thereby of terminating the patient’s life would leave the doctor with no answer to a charge of murder (para [35]). However, a patient could not demand treatment that the doctor believed was adverse to the patient’s clinical needs (para [55]). Thus, the general position is that doctors need to decide what options are clinically indicated, the patient then chooses one (or none) of them.
If one of the options is chosen, the doctor will then provide it. If none is chosen, then the patient may ask for a different treatment, which the doctor would no doubt consider but would not be obliged to provide if it is not clinically indicated (although he should offer to arrange a second opinion) (para [50]).
Comment: For the most part, this decision affirms the established interpretation of the rules governing the doctor-patient relationship. However, it offers a slight shift towards the extension of patient choice in that it is suggested that doctors should offer to patients a choice of the whole range of clinically acceptable options and accept the patient’s choice from amongst them. This suggests greater control to patients than permitting doctors to present only the optimal solutions. However, this control is limited to those options that doctors see as clinically indicated.
The Court of Appeal resisted the suggestion that there was any legal right to demand particular reatment.
Human rights
Failure to take steps to ensure child’s return was breach of art 6 rights
HN v Poland App 77710/01 [2005] 3 FCR 101, ECtHR
BFLS 5A[4169]
In HN v Poland App 77710/01 [2005] 3 FCR 101 the European Court of Human Rights held that art 6 rights had been breached in child abduction proceedings where it had taken three years, seven months and 16 days to resolve the issues, due to periods of inactivity by the authorities. The authorities were found to have failed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the execution of the proceedings as could reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the case.
Differential tax regime for non-marital fathers breach of human rights
PM v UK App No 6638/03 [2005] 3 FCR 101, ECtHR
BFLS 5A[4230]
In PM v UK App No 6638/03 [2005] 3 FCR 101 the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK had improperly discriminated against a non-marital father by denying him tax relief on the maintenance payments in respect of his daughter when a divorced father paying child maintenance would have been granted tax relief. The man had been acknowledged as father and had acted in that role, he had duly fulfilled his financial obligations towards his daughter and there was no reason for treating him differently to a previously married father.
Comment: The government argued that it was legitimate to give minor fiscal privileges to married couples in order to support the institution of marriage and that it would always have been open to the parties to choose to obtain that support by marrying. The different treatment on this view therefore flowed from the free choice of the parties to remain unmarried.
The court took the view that the purpose of the tax relief was to make it easier to support children, which was equally relevant to marital and non-marital families. That approach does not preclude special tax relief for spouses, but, given the way in which child support obligations have developed without regard to marital status, such differential treatment cannot be justified in relation to child-related tax rules.
Statutory instruments
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Commencement No 10 Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005, SI 2005/2897
This order is the tenth commencement order made under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In addition to bringing into force further provisions of the act, it makes a number of transitional and savings provisions.
Article 2 brings into force on 30 December 2005 a number of provisions of the act.
Article 2(a) brings into force paras 1, 2, 6 to 8, and 17 to 22 of sch 4 and s 139(2) in so far as it relates to those paragraphs.
Schedule 4 is concerned with transitional and transitory provisions and savings and s 139(2) gives effect to it.
Paragraph 1 of sch 4 sets out the general rules for continuity while para 2 makes a general rule for old savings.
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, respectively, with pending applications for freeing orders, freeing orders and pending applications for adoption orders.
Paragraphs 17 to 19 are concerned with the status of adopted children, para 20 with the registration of adoptions, 21 with the effect on the application of the Child Abduction Act 1984 and 22 with the effect on the application of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
Article 2(b) brings into force s 139(3) and sch 5 (repeals) except in so far as they relate to:
— ss 50, 52, 53(2) and 65(1) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978;
— s 40(2)(a) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984; and
— s 14 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999.
All the provisions set out in sch 5 are repealed save for those listed above.
Part 3 of the order is concerned with transitional arrangements.
Article 3 sets out, with exceptions, the general rule for how cases in progress under the adoption agencies
Regulations 1983 on 30 December 2005 should be dealt with.
Article 4 makes transitional provision for the case of a child free for adoption by virtue of a freeing order made under s 18 of the Adoption Act 1976.
Article 5 is concerned with the transitional arrangements in the case of a child who because of the repeal of ss 32 to 36 of the 1976 Act ceases to be a protected child and so becomes a privately fostered child.
Articles 6 to 8 make transitional arrangements in relation to intercountry adoption cases.
Article 6 sets out a general rule, with exceptions, for Hague convention cases in progress on 30 December 2005.
Article 7 makes transitional provision concerning the conditions to be met by prospective adopters in non-convention cases; Art 8 regarding the functions on local authorities after receiving a notice of intention to adopt, in both non-convention and Hague convention cases.
Article 9 is concerned with restrictions on removal of children when an application for an order under s 12 (adoption orders) or s 18 (freeing for adoption) of the 1976 Act is pending on 30 December; Art 10 is about applications for freeing orders pending on 30 December 2005; Art 11 about pending application for adoption orders in non-agency cases; and Art 12 is concerned with applications under s 53 (annulment, etc. of overseas adoptions) or 55 (adoption of children abroad) of the 1976 Act which have been made but not disposed of immediately before 30 December 2005.
Part 4 of the order makes savings provisions in relation to records and the disclosure of adoption information (Art 13); parental orders under s 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (Art 14); the Local Authority Adoption Service (England) Regulations 2003 (Art 15); and voluntary adoption agencies (Art 16).
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Tax Credits, etc) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2005, SI 2005/2919
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 introduced the concept of civil partnership for couples of the same sex. As a result of that act this order, which comes into force on 5 December 2005, makes consequential amendments to the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2005), the Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2006), the Child Tax Credit Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2007), the Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2014), the Tax Credits (Payments by the Commissioners) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2173), the Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/653), the Tax Credits (Residence) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/654), the Tax Credits (Provision of Information) (Functions Relating to Health) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/731), the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/493), the Guardian’s Allowance (General) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/495), the Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance (Administration) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/492), the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976/1267), the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1976 (SR 1976/223), the Child Trust Funds Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1450), the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2745) and the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (SR 1996/520).
The amendments relate to terminology and in particular introduce new definitions of partner’and couple.
Part 1 provides for citation and commencement.
Part 2 contains the amendments to tax credits.
Part 3 contains the amendments to child benefit and guardian’s allowance.
Part 4 contains an amendment to child trust funds.
Part 5 contains amendments to provisions of social security law relating to the computation of earnings for those in receipt of certain social security benefits.
The Dissolution etc (Pensions) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/2920
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, make provision relating to orders made under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, including those made after proceedings overseas, for ancillary relief in proceedings for dissolution, separation or nullity of civil partnership which relate to the pension rights of a party to the civil partnership.
The regulations provide in particular for:
(a) the valuation of pension rights by the court;
(b) notices of change of circumstances to be provided by the person responsible for the pension arrangement to the civil partner without pension rights, or by that civil partner to the person responsible to the pension arrangement; and
(c) the stay period during which pension sharing orders cannot take effect.
The Family Proceedings (Civil Partnership: Staying of Proceedings) Rules 2005, SI 2005/2921
These rules, which come into force on 5 December 2005, are made under s 223 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which allows for provision to be made in relation to civil partnerships corresponding to the provision made in respect of marriages by sch 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.
That schedule makes provision about the relationship between domestic proceedings for divorce, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and declarations as to the validity and subsistence of a marriage of the petitioner, and proceedings in another jurisdiction of a similar type, and provides for when those domestic proceedings must or may be stayed.
These rules make similar provision about the relationship between domestic proceedings for an order of dissolution, separation or nullity of civil partnership or for a declaration as to the validity or subsistence of a civil partnership, and proceedings in another jurisdiction of a similar type.
Rule 2 requires any party who is seeking an order in civil partnership proceedings to provide particulars of relevant overseas proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the FPR 1991.
Rule 3 provides that where there are proceedings for a dissolution order before the court and the trial in those proceedings has not begun then, in certain circumstances, the court must stay those proceedings if similar proceedings in respect of the same civil partnership are continuing in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey (including Alderney and Sark) or the Isle of Man ("a related jurisdiction"). Rule 11 modifies the application of this provision in respect of a civil partnership which is a recognised overseas relationship registered before the coming into force of these rules.
Rule 4 provides that where there are proceedings before the court and the trial in those proceedings has not begun then, if the balance of fairness makes it appropriate, the court can stay all or part of those proceedings if there are similar proceedings continuing in another jurisdiction. This rule also applies where the trial in the proceedings before the court has begun but one of the parties failed to tell the court about the proceedings in the other jurisdiction.
Rule 5 provides for the discharge of orders staying proceedings under rr 3 and 4.
Rule 7 makes provision about the court’s power to make certain ancillary relief orders where a stay is imposed under these rules by reference to proceedings in a related jurisdiction.
Rule 8 makes provision about the effect of orders already made in civil partnership proceedings which have been stayed by reference to proceedings in a related jurisdiction. Rule 6(4) makes clear that these provisions do not affect the court’s power to deal with orders which remain in force, enforce orders in relation to any period when they were in force, or make orders once proceedings are no longer stayed.
Rule 9 provides that where proceedings are for more than one of the following: an order for dissolution, nullity or separation, but the proceedings are stayed only in so far as they are for some of those orders, rr 7 and 8 do not apply but the court may not make a lump sum order or a relevant order in respect of the proceedings so far as they are stayed.
Rule 10 makes clear that these Rules do not affect any other power which the court might have to stay the proceedings.
Rule 1 and the remainder of r 6 make provision consequential to that made by other rules.
The Family Law Act 1996 (Part IV) (Allocation of Proceedings)(Amendment) Order 2005, SI 2005/2924
This drder, which comes into force on 5 December 2005, amends the Family Law Act 1996 (Part IV) (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1997 as a result of the implementation of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which received royal assent on 18 November 2004.
Article 2 of this order is amended to create a new class of court known as a designated county court which includes both divorce county courts (as under the order prior to amendment) and civil partnership proceedings county courts in the classes of county court specified for the purpose of the order. Article 3 enables the principal registry of the family division of the High Court to be treated as if it were either a divorce county court or a civil partnership proceedings county court where necessary.
The Magistrates’ Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2005, SI 2005/2930
These rules make amendments to five sets of rules, which apply in proceedings in magistrates’ courts, as a result of the implementation of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which received royal assent on 18 November 2004. These amendments will come into force on 5 December 2005 at the same time as the substantive provisions of the 2004 act.
It also amends the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 as a result of the implementation of the ss 112 (acquisition of parental responsibility by step-parent) and 115(1) (special guardianship) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) which received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002.
These provisions will come into force on 30 December 2005 at the same time as those provisions of the 2002 act to which they relate.
Paragraph 1 amends r 1 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (Summary Jurisdiction) Rules 1950 to remove an incorrect reference to sub-s 3 of s 1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978, and inserts a para (1A), to make provision similar to that made in para (1) for proceedings under the 1978 Act, for proceedings under pt 1 of sch 6 to the Civil Partnership Act. It also makes further consequential changes.
Paragraph 2 amends r 5 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Guardianship of Minors) Rules 1974 to make provision about applications for consent to the formation of a civil partnership by a child.
Paragraph 4 amends r 39(6) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 to make rules about giving notice of an application to vary a periodical payments order.
Paragraph 5 amends r 45 of those rules so that the duty to notify a person entitled to payments under a maintenance order includes a duty to notify the formation of a subsequent civil partnership, and to include orders made under the 2004 Act within the list of those orders in relation to which notification needs to be made.
Paragraph 13 amends r 5 of those rules to apply the provisions about answers to applications under sch 6 to the 2004 Act.
Paragraph 14 amends r 16 of those rules to ensure that provision about orders made with the consent of the defendant without hearing evidence applies to applications for variation of periodical payments orders made under the 2004 Act.
Paragraph 15 amends r 17 of those rules to make provision about proof of the consent of the respondent to the making of an order under pt 2 of sch 6 to the 2004 Act.
Paragraph 16 amends r 18 of those rules which makes provision about decisions in a magistrates’ court under para 18 of sch 6 to the act of 2004.
Paragraph 17 creates a new r 19A of those rules making provision about who should be a respondent to an application under para 30 to 34 of sch 6 to the act of 2004.
Paragraph 18 amends r 22 of those rules to make provision about applications by or against a person outside the jurisdiction for the revocation or variation of certain orders made under sch 6 to the 2004 act.
Paragraph 19 amends r 23 of those rules to make provision about the resumption of an adjourned application under pt 1 of sch 6 to the 2004 act before a bench including, or consisting of, different justices.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 make changes consequential to other rules changes.
Paragraphs 20 to 32 and schs 2 to 4 make amendments to the contents of forms 1 to 7 and 9, FL401, FL402, FL416 and FL423 in sch 1 to those rules so that the forms are also applicable to proceedings under the act of 2004.
A new form 9A is created.
Paragraphs 33 to 47 and 49, 50(a), (d) to (f) and 51 amend the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 to make changes consequential to amendments to the Children Act 1989 made by ss 112 and 115 of the 2002 act.
Section 112 of the 2002 act inserts s 4A into the Children Act 1989 to enable a step-parent to acquire parental responsibility for a child of his spouse or civil partner.
Section 115(1) of that act inserts new ss 14A–14G into the 1989 act to provide for special guardianship orders.
The amendments in these rules make provision for the procedure which applies to an application for a special guardianship order or an order giving a step-parent parental responsibility.
Paragraphs 50(b) and (c) make amendments to the contents of form C1 and form C10A in sch 1 to the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 so that the forms are also applicable to proceedings under the Act of 2004.
Paragraph 48 amends r 23A of those rules (communication of information relating to proceedings) to include civil partners.
The Civil Partnership (Miscellaneous and Consequential Provisions) Order 2005, SI 2005/3029
This order amends the Civil Partnership (Pensions and Benefit Payments) (Consequential, etc Provisions) Order 2005 (SI 2005/2053), and certain provisions of acts and secondary legislation, relating to pensions and benefit payments, and the protection of vulnerable adults, extending those provisions to cover civil partnerships.
The amendments take effect on 5 December 2005, save for sch 1, para 1, which was brought into force on 29 October 2005.
Article 2 provides for an amendment to the extent provision in the Pensions and Benefits Order.
Article 3 introduces sch 1 to the order. Article 4 introduces sch 2 to the order.
Paragraph 1 of sch 1 contains an amendment of s 62(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to allow regulations to extend s 37 of the National Insurance Act 1965 in order to provide that a surviving civil partner who attains pensionable age before 6 April 2010, may be entitled to graduated retirement benefit on the same conditions as a widower.
Paragraph 2 of sch 1 amends s 129 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c 48) to insert a reference to a civil partnership.
Paragraph 3 of sch 1 amends section 51 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c 49) to extend the provisions in respect of widows and widowers in this section to surviving civil partners.
Paragraph 4 of sch 1 amends s 166 of the Pensions Act 1995 (c 26) which has the effect of disapplying the prohibitions on assignment of private pensions to third parties in a number of statutory provisions in the case of a pension earmarking or attachment order made by a court under the powers contained in part 6 of sch 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Paragraph 5 of sch 1 amends s 80 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c 14) which sets out a scheme for the protection of vulnerable adults. This amendment extends the same treatment to civil partners of vulnerable adults, to specified relatives of civil partners and to civil partners of their specified relatives, as currently extends to spouses of vulnerable adults, to specified relatives of spouses and to spouses of their specified relatives.
It also provides that civil partner is to be read as including former civil partners, and those living together as if they were civil partners.
Schedule 2 amends the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 and the Personal Pension Schemes (Appropriate Schemes) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 to extend the provisions to civil partners and surviving civil partners.
The Social Security (Inherited SERPS) (Amendments relating to Civil Partnership) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3030
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, are made under s 52(2) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 as amended by the Civil Partnership (Pensions and Benefits Payments) (Consequential, etc Provisions) Order 2005 (SI 2005/2053).
They extend the provisions of the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1085) to surviving civil partners.In particular, reg 2 makes provision for surviving civil partners whose civil partner dies on or after 5 December 2005 to receive an increase in the rate of the additional (earnings related) pension under the state earnings related pensions scheme in the same way as a surviving spouse.
This regulation also allows for the proportion of the additional pension used in the calculation of the surviving civil partner’s inheritable increments or lump sum to be increased in line with the provisions set out in those regulations relating to the calculation of the additional pension for surviving civil partners.
The Personal Injuries (Civilians) (Amendment) (No 3) Scheme 2005, SI 2005/3031
This scheme, which comes into force on 5 December 2005, further amends the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983 (the principal scheme) in consequence of the introduction of civil partnerships by the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c 33).
Sub-paras 1(1) and (2) of sch 1 to this scheme removed the marriage related eligibility requirements of the definition of an adult dependant for the purposes of Art 18 of the principal scheme.
Paragraph 21 of sch 1 to this scheme inserts a reference to adult dependant into para 7(b)(i) of the table at sch 3 of the principal scheme in order to bring it into line with the provisions of art 18(5)(b) of the principal scheme.
All other paragraphs provide that marriage related benefits are paid equally to civil partners in consequence of the introduction of civil partnerships by the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
The War Pensions Committees (Amendment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3032
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, amend the War Pensions Committees Regulations 2000 in consequence of the introduction of civil partnerships by the Civil Partnership Act 2004
The War Pensions (Mercantile Marine) (Amendment) Scheme 2005, SI 2005/3033
This scheme, which comes into force on 5 December 2005, amends the War Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Scheme 1964 (the principal scheme) in consequence of the introduction of civil partnerships by the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
The Civil Partnership (Treatment of Overseas Relationships) Order 2005, SI 2005/3042
This order makes provision relating to the treatment of overseas relationships treated as civil partnerships by virtue of chapter 2 of part 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which were registered in the country where they were entered into before the date on which the 2004 Act comes into force (5 December 2005).
Under s 215 of the 2004 Act an overseas relationship registered abroad before 5 December 2005 will be treated as a civil partnership which was formed on the date when that section comes into force. For most purposes an overseas relationship which was dissolved or annulled before that date will not be treated as a civil partnership.
Section 215(4) modifies this rule in relation to certain specified provisions and s 215(5) gives a minister of the crown power to specify additional provisions.
Article 2 of this order exercises that power.
Article 3 of this order modifies the application of various provisions of the 2004 act which refer to the length of the civil partnership concerned so that they apply in relation to overseas relationships registered before 5 December 2005 in a way which allows consideration of the actual length of that overseas relationship.
Article 4 saves a will made by a party before registering, before 5 December 2005, an overseas relationship, from becoming invalid on recognition of the relationship as a civil partnership.
Article 5 modifies the provision which determines when an overseas relationship formed before 5 December 2005 will be recognised as a civil partnership to ensure that a person cannot be recognised as being a party to more than one civil partnership or a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time.
The Vaccine Damage Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3070
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, amend reg 5 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979 (which specifies the cases in which vaccinations given outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man to serving members of Her Majesty’s Forces or members of their families are to be treated as carried out in England).
The amendment widens the definition of the family of serving members of Her Majesty’s forces to include civil partners of such members and persons who live together with such members as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners.
The National Health Service (Pension Scheme, Injury Benefits, Additional Voluntary Contributions and Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Civil Partnership) Amendment Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3074
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, make further amendments to the National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995, the National Health Service (Injury Benefits) Regulations 1995 (‘the Injury Benefits Regulations’), the National Health Service Pension Scheme (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2000 and the National Health Service (Compensation for Premature Retirement) Regulations 2002.
The amendments extend these provisions to civil partners, their dependants and surviving civil partners to enable them to receive benefits under the relevant legislation following the introduction of civil partnership on 5 December 2005 when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 comes into force.
Regulation 2 amends the principal regulations. In particular, it provides for a survivor’s pension to be payable in respect of the member’s service from 1988 onwards.
It also provides for the member to nominate their civil partner for a dependant’s pension. It sets out the conditions on which an officer or a practitioner with pensionable service before 1988 may elect to buy an increased survivor’s pension.
Regulation 3 amends the Injury Benefits Regulations. In particular, it sets out the circumstances in which an allowance is payable to a surviving civil partner and where a child allowance or a dependant’s allowance is payable. It further provides for the civil partner to receive a lump sum payment on death.
Regulation 4 amends the Additional Voluntary Contributions Regulations. In particular, it provides for a surviving civil partner or a dependant civil partner to receive a pension where the member has elected to make additional voluntary contributions.
Regulation 5 amends the Compensation for Premature Retirement Regulations. In particular, it provides for the officer to allocate part of his annual allowance in favour of his surviving civil partner. It also provides for compensation payments to be payable to the surviving civil partner and for the payment of a lump sum to be payable on the death of the officer.
The Social Security (Retirement Pensions and Graduated Retirement Benefit) (Widowers and Civil Partnership) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3078
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, make provision relating to widowers, civil partners and surviving civil partners.
Regulations 2 and 3 amend, respectively, the Social Security (Graduated Retirement Benefit) (No 2) Regulations 1978 and the Social Security (Graduated Retirement Benefit) Regulations 2005. These amendments extend to civil partners the same inheritance rights as apply to widowers in respect of a deceased person’s graduated retirement benefit, including any increments or lump sum in a case where the deceased had deferred his or her entitlement.
Regulation 4 amends paras (5A)–(5F) of reg 30 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (claims for a Category A or B retirement pension, shared additional pension or graduated retirement benefit made on behalf of a person who has died where the person had deferred entitlement to the pension or benefit). The amendments extend these provisions to civil partners and they enable a claim for a category A or B retirement pension or graduated retirement benefit to be made where a widower is under pension age at the time of his wife’s death.
The Civil Partnership (Supplementary Provisions relating to the Recognition of Overseas Dissolutions, Annulments or Legal Separations) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3104
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, make supplemental provision for the recognition in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of dissolutions and annulments of civil partnerships and the legal separation of civil partners obtained abroad. This is in addition to the provision made in ss 234–237 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Regulation 2 provides for countries comprising two or more territories which have different systems of law in relation to this subject matter. It ensures that such territories are treated for recognition purposes as countries. It is analogous to s 49 of the Family Law Act 1986, part II of which deals with the recognition of divorces, nullity of marriage and the legal separation of married parties.
Regulation 3 provides for situations where s 235 of the 2004 Act would be insufficient to ensure the proper recognition of the validity of certain overseas dissolutions etc. because one or both of the civil partners is either habitually resident or domiciled in a country or territory whose law does not recognise legal relationships between people of the same sex.
Regulations 4, 5 and 6 provide respectively for the recognition of certain dissolutions etc obtained in cross-proceedings, the recognition of certain dissolutions obtained following the conversion of legal separations and the facilitation of the proof of certain facts relevant to recognition and established in the earlier proceedings abroad. These provisions are analogous to s 47(1) and (2) and s 48 of the 1986 Act.
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Overseas Relationships and Consequential, etc Amendments) Order 2005, SI 2005/3129
Part 2 of this order, which come into force on 5 December 2005, contains article 3 which amends sch 20 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Schedule 20 specifies certain overseas relationships that may be treated as civil partnerships for the purposes of the act. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) add references to the names for the relationship under other official language(s) of the country or territory in question.
Paragraph (a) of art 3 adds the Dutch and German expressions in relation to Belgium, para (b) adds the French name in relation to Quebec and para (c) adds the Swedish in relation to Finland. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Art 3 rectify two typographical errors relating to a pacte civil de solidarité (civil solidarity pact in France), and a geregistreerd partnerschap (registered partnership in the Netherlands).
Paragraph (f) omits the translations previously given.
Part 3 of this order introduces schs 1 to 4 to the Order. The schs make amendments, which are consequential on and supplementary to the act, of other acts and church legislation.
Schedule 1 contains amendments relating to registration matters with respect to civil partnerships.
Paragraph 1 of sch 1 amends the Savings Banks Act 1887 by inserting ss 10A, 10B, and 10C.
Section 10A applies to England and Wales. The amendment enables a person to obtain a certificate of civil partnership from the registration authority for the area in which the civil partnership was formed in accordance with regulations made under s 36 of the Act and for a fee prescribed under section 34(1) of the Act.
Section 10B applies to Scotland. The amendment enables a person to obtain a certificate of civil partnership from a district registrar in such manner as approved by the registrar general for Scotland.
Section 10C applies to Northern Ireland. The amendment enables a person to obtain a certification of civil partnership from the registrar general for Northern Ireland or a registrar or deputy registrar of civil partnership in accordance with regulations made under s 159(1) of the act for a fee prescribed under s 157 of the Act and in such form as is approved by the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Paragraph 2 of sch 1 amends s 19 of the Registration Service Act 1953. The reference to abstracts of live births, still births, deaths and marriages registered in s 19 is amended to include abstracts of civil partnerships registered. The effect of the amendment is to enable the registrar general to send to the minister annually a general abstract of the number of civil partnerships registered in the year last preceding for laying before each House of Parliament.
Paragraph 3 of sch 1 extends the exclusion from the definition of public records under para 2 of sch 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 to records relating to the registration of civil partnerships.
Paragraph 4 of sch 1 amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 by inserting ss 124A and 124B.
Section 124A applies to England and Wales. The amendment enables a person, for the purposes mentioned in s 124(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to obtain from the registration authority for the area in which the civil partnership was formed, a certified copy of an entry in the civil partnership register in accordance with regulations made under s 36 of the act and for a fee prescribed under s 34(1) of the act.
Section 124B applies to Scotland. The amendment enables a person, for the purposes mentioned in s 124(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to obtain from a district registrar, a certified copy of the entry in the civil partnership register, of the particulars of the civil partnership. Requests for certificates are to be made in such manner as is approved by the registrar general for Scotland.
Paragraph 5 of sch 1 amends s 167(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Section 167(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 applies s 124 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 so that the purposes mentioned in s 124(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 for which prescribed information may be provided also includes the purposes of specified provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 referred to as the relevant provisions (see s 164(1)(b) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993).
The amendment to s 167(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 ensures that prescribed information about civil partnerships which may be provided for the purposes mentioned in s 124(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, by virtue of the new ss 124A and 124B of that act, may also be provided for the purposes of the relevant provisions.
Schedule 2 amends the Marriage Act 1949 (the 1949 Act) to enable former civil partners, one of whom has changed sex as a result of the issue of a full gender recognition certificate under s 5A(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to marry under part 3 of the 1949 Act without being delayed by the waiting period ordinarily provided for in s 31(4A).
Schedule 3 contains amendments of church legislation.
Paragraph 1(2) of sch 3 amends s 36 of the Pluralities Act 1838 to extend to surviving civil partners the right presently enjoyed by the surviving spouse of a cleric who has died in office to remain in occupation of the parsonage house for a period of not more than two months after the date of that cleric’s death.
Paragraph 1(3) of sch 3 amends s 43 of the Pluralities Act 1838 to extend the discretion of a bishop to grant a licence to a cleric to reside out of the benefice or the parsonage house, for a period of not exceeding six months, in circumstances where that cleric’s spouse or child is dangerously ill, to enable the illness of a civil partner to be taken into account in the same way.
Paragraph 2 of sch 3 amends s 1(6) of the Parsonages Measure 1938 to extend the definition of a connected person whose involvement in certain transactions relating to parsonage houses requires the consent of the church commissioners, to include a civil partner of various specified persons already within this definition.
Paragraph 3(2) of sch 3 amends s 11 of the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986, which sets out the requirements relating to the meeting of a parochial church council convened after notification of a vacancy, to provide that a civil partner of the outgoing incumbent may not attend such a meeting.
Paragraph 3(3) of sch 3 amends s 12(4) of the 1986 measure to make similar provision to that in para 3(2) in the case of a joint meeting of the parochial church council with the bishop and patron.
Paragraph 4 of Sch 3 amends s 2(5) of the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure 1994 to extend the criteria to which the Legal Aid Commission must have regard in deciding whether to grant legal aid to a cleric (and, if so, to what extent) so that the financial resources of a civil partner are to be taken into account in the same way as those of a spouse.
Schedule 4 contains further amendments, which are consequential upon the act.
The Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No 6) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3130
These regulations amend the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1004) in consequence of the coming into force on 5 December 2005 of the main provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Regulation 1 provides for the citation and commencement of this instrument. Regulation 2 introduces the amendments. Regulations 3 and 4 make amendments to the principal regulations to secure equality of treatment between civil partners and spouses in the application of the national insurance contributions régime.
The Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3133
These regulations amend the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 in consequence of the coming into force, on 5 December 2005 of the main provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Regulation 1 provides for the citation and commencement of this instrument.
Regulation 2 introduces the amendments.
Regulations 3 and 4 amend references to spouses in the 1978 regulations so as to secure equality of treatment between civil partners and spouses in the application of the categorisation rules for the purposes of national insurance contributions.
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Overseas Relationships) Order 2005, SI 2005/3135
This order amends sch 20 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 with effect from 5 December 2005. Schedule 20 specifies overseas relationships that may be treated as civil partnerships for the purposes of the act, provided certain other conditions in the act are satisfied.
This order adds the following relationships to the specified relationships in sch 20—
(a) uniü estable de parella (Catalan translation) in Andorra;
(b) significant relationship in Tasmania, Australia;
(c) marriage in Canada;
(d) the relationship referred to as partenariat enregistre (French translation) or eingetragene partnerschaft (German translation) in Luxembourg;
(e) civil union in New Zealand;
(f) marriage in Spain;
(g) domestic partnership in California, United States of America;
(h) civil union in Connecticut, United States of America;
(i) domestic partnership in Maine, United States of America;
(j) marriage in Massachusetts, United States of America;
(k) domestic partnership in New Jersey, United States of America.
The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Civil Partnership) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3164
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, make consequential amendments to ensure that surviving civil partners are treated in the same way as widows and widowers.
Regulation 2 amends reg 12(4)(b)(ia) of the Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes (Protected Rights) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1537) to deal with where a member dies leaving a surviving civil partner but before giving effect to his protected rights.
Regulation 3 amends regulation 12 of the Personal Pension Schemes (Appropriate Schemes)
Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/470) which applies where minimum contributions become payable in circumstances where an earner died after giving effect to his protected rights but was not married and was not in a civil partnership. The minimum contributions will be paid to such a person as the HM Revenue and Customs decide.
Regulation 4 amends the Occupational Pension Schemes (Discharge of Liability) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/784). Regulation 5 of those regulations is amended so that where liability for a guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) is discharged using a policy of insurance, the annuity payable to a surviving civil partner must be equal to the GMP payable to him or her.
Regulation 11 of those regulations is amended so that where a relevant scheme discharges its liability to provide a pension, the policy or contract used must provide that payments to surviving civil partners are subject to increases required by para 4A of that regulation.
Regulation 5 amends the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amount Required for Restoring State Scheme Rights and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1397) so that an insolvent scheme may restore the state scheme rights of a surviving civil partner who has a right to payment of a pension from the scheme by virtue of his deceased partner.
Regulation 6 makes amendments to the Personal Pension Schemes (Appropriate Schemes) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 (SR 1997/139) which correspond to those made in reg 3.
Regulation 7 makes amendments to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amount Required for Restoring State Scheme Rights and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (SR 1998/208) which correspond to those made in reg 5.
The Registration of Civil Partnerships (Fees) (No 2) Order 2005, SI 2005/3167
This order, which comes into force on 5 December 2005, specifies, in relation to obtaining copies of entries in the register of civil partnerships and to obtaining a certificate of no impediment to the registration of an overseas relationship, the amount of the fees to be paid and who they are to be paid to.
The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3168
These regulations, which come into force on 5 December 2005, provide a uniform system for the approval of premises in which civil marriage ceremonies and the formation of civil partnerships may take place. The previous regulations relating to approval of premises for the purposes of civil marriage ceremonies only, are revoked.
The regulations relate to—
(a) the procedure for the making of an application for a joint approval;
(b) the consultation procedure following the making of an application for a joint approval;
(c) the procedure for granting or refusing an application for a joint approval including the requirements which have to be satisfied for the grant of an approval;
(d) the conditions which may be attached by the authority to the grant of a joint approval;
(e) the procedure for renewing and revoking an approval;
(f) the procedure for reviewing a decision to refuse an approval or to attach conditions to the grant of an approval;
(g) the procedure for the keeping of registers of approved premises by the authority;
(h) the issue of guidance by the registrar general to supplement the provisions made by the regulations;
(i) the setting of fees for an application or renewal of a joint approval and for the attendance of a civil partnership registrar when two people sign a civil partnership schedule on approved premises;
(j) the issue of notices by the authority to approval holders; and
(k) revocations and transitional provisions.
Recent articles on family and child law
Family law and the Human Rights Act 1998: judicial restraint or revolution?
Sonia Harris-Short (2005) 17 CFLQ 329
The wedding of the Prince of Wales: royal privileges and human rights
Rebecca Probert (2005) 17 CFLQ 363
Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage
Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow & Grace James (2005) 17 CFLQ 383
R(SB) v headteacher & governors of Denbigh high school—human rights and religious dress in schools
Ann Blair (2005) 17 CFLQ 399
Flirting with academic categorisations—MacFarlane v MacFarlane & Parlour v Parlour
Katherine O’Donovan (2005) 17 CFLQ 415
Divorce law update
Magnus Mill (2005) 155 NLJ 1351
Protecting the family business
Elizabeth Baghurst & Sue Laing (2005) 155 NLJ 1382
Child tenants—a minor problem
Emily Orme (2005) 155 NLJ 1522
Under the influence
Mathew Hansell (2005) 155 NLJ 1579
Civil partnerships—start planning now
Simon Leney (2005) 155 NLJ 1582 (tax and probate planning)
Living in limbo
Karen Shakespeare (2005) 155 NLJ 1585 (reform of law on death of cohabiting partner)
Civil rights and child support
Debra Mo (2005) 155 NLJ 1724
Reforming cohabitation law
Stuart Bridge, Law Commissioner [2005] Fam Law 679
Cafcass and the Adoption and Children Act 2002
Mike Hinchcliffe [2005] Fam Law 703
Child support, dividend income and the Bertie Wooster escape clause
Nick Wikeley [2005] Fam Law 707
Ancillary relief—evolution or revolution?
Penny Booth & Cathy Kennedy [2005] Fam Law 712
Shared parenting—the clear message
Re G Lee Arnot & Ema Harte [2005] Fam Law 718
Land Registration Act 2002, s 46: a guided missile
Steven Carrigan [2005] Fam Law 722 (On jurisdiction to prevent sale of property)
Divorce in a multi-faith society
Cheryl Morris [2005] Fam Law 727
LSC and treatment costs [2005] Fam Law 741
The Payne threshold: leaving the jurisdiction
District judge Glenn Brasse [2005] Fam Law 780
Miller: Practitioners’ expectations disappointed
Andrew Meehan [2005] Fam Law 787
Minwalla v Minwalla: straining the limits of comity
Timothy Hanson & Mark Renouf [2005] Fam Law 794
Experts’ costs in public law Children Act cases
Noel Arnold [2005] Fam Law 800
Disclosure of social services documents into criminal proceedings
Alistair G Perkins & Elizabeth Tomlinson [2005] Fam Law 806
Social workers’ professional practice after Climbié
Mark Jarman & Liz Davies [2005] Fam Law 814
The CSA: A practitioner update
James Pirrie [2005] Fam Law 823
Work of the domestic abuse committee
Nicholas Longford [2005] Fam Law 833
Miller v Miller: the descent into chaos
John Eekelaar [2005] Fam Law 870
Miller v Miller: guidance or confusion
Roger Bird [2005] Fam Law 874
Managing costs—help from the CPR?
District judge John Mitchell [2005] Fam Law 883
The civil partnership act—effects on next of kin
Sophie Tarassenko & Lucy Yeatman [2005] Fam Law 887
The threat to care proceedings
David Jockelson [2005] Fam Law 891
Rule 9.5: triumph of children’s rights or waste of resources?
Gill Timmis [2005] Fam Law 894
Learning from rule 9.5
Carole Lewis [2005] Fam Law 899
Alcohol—a bier for contact?
Ian Waite [2005] Fam Law 902
The leave to remove debate [2005] Fam Law 911
News round up: Interview with Gaynor Arnold, social worker novelist
13 August 2008
Interview with Gaynor Arnold, Booker nominated social worker
13 August 2008
Action on Elder Abuse: 'Adult protection needs legal backing'
12 August 2008
Latest case law in relation to children's human rights
06 August 2008
Youth Justice and the Youth Justice Board
26 August 2008
Substance misuse
15 August 2008
Details of government consultations
21 August 2008
Private Member Bills
25 July 2008
Government Legislation
25 July 2008
