Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

APPEALS: CONTACT: Re K (Appeal: Contact) [2010] EWCA Civ 1365

Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Slug : 2010EWCA1365
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : 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

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.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from