Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
APPEALS: CONTACT: Re K (Appeal: Contact)  EWCA Civ 1365
Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jan 14, 2011, 01:30 AM
Article ID :93363
(Court of Appeal; Sir Nicholas Wall P, Laws and Toulson LJJ; 2 December 2010)
The District judge dismissed the father's application for contact with children and made a s 91(14) order for one year. The District judge made a finding that the father was guilty of serious litigation conduct in withdrawing a previous contact application to avoid a fact finding hearing.
Father's appeal allowed. The District Judge's order for no contact and a s91(14) order deprived the children of the chance of growing up with a real knowledge of their father without oral evidence and in breach of the father's Art 6 rights. It was plainly wrong and the appeal Judge should have said so. The father's litigation conduct did not mean his application had no prospect of success, being based on the paramount welfare of the children.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.