Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDY/ ENFORCEMENT G v A (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:13 PM
A summary of this financial remedy/enforcement case [2011] EWHC 2380
Slug : 2011EWHC2380No2
Meta Title : G v A (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 29, 2011, 12:50 PM
Article ID : 97301
(Family Division; Peter Jackson J; 23 March 2011)
Enforcement of Munby's order in Re N; A v G and N [2010] 1 FLR 272; see also two related cases under related articles tab above. In the face of further procrastination by the father and Pelling, the mother applied for writ preventing the father from leaving jurisdiction until payment of relevant sum (father due to travel to Hong Kong and China). Court did not make this order, but did order seizure of passport. Judge found father was in default of Horowitz order. No good reason for default. Court made limited freezing order and disclosure order but returned father's passport.
Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from