Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR. N. ANDERSON (instructed by Miles Preston & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR. T GUPTA QC (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ____________________
"The decision for the children and I to move permanently to England was finally resolved upon by the father and I sometime in early June 2014. It was a joint decision, and it was also a final decision in the sense that it was an unconditional decision: the only things outstanding were details of the move".
The father says that there were discussions, plans and actions, but no agreement.
"Looking into the near future, we decided that [the mother] and the children will be moving to London and have had an offer accepted on a house in Balham. [The children] have places at [schools]. I plan to spend as much time as possible in London based out of [the jointly owned flat]. I�think it is the best for everyone, especially for the kids getting a good education early on within a stable environment, not losing their friends every year, and it is important for [the mother] to be physically close to all of you".
"The new permanent residence of the children and wife will be in London after the divorce, provided that it is filed in Hungary before 30 th September 2014. Failing this deadline, the husband does not agree for the wife and children to leave Budapest".
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.