Family Law

Her Honour Nasreen Pearce
Retired Circuit Judge

David Burrows
Solicitor Advocate

'Passport seizure after Young v Young' is the second of two articles which analyses the decision of Mostyn J in Young v Young [2012] EWHC 138 (Fam), [2012] 2 FLR (forthcoming and noted at June [2012] Fam Law 655). The first article (see June [2012] Fam Law 681) examined the legal basis of the court's jurisdiction to impound the passport of a party to proceedings and thus to restrain a person from leaving the UK. The interim remedy of passport seizure arises in the context of the writ ne exeat regno and under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court (Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37); and the articles compare the two routes to the remedy and the enforcement consequences of each. The remedy is considered in the context of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) financial order and other forms of family and family financial proceedings.

The second article deals with procedural aspects for the parties in pursuing an application for the remedy, including application in the context of FPR 2010, Parts 18 and 20 (CPR 1998, Parts 23 and 25 in family civil proceedings); and it stresses the advantages of an inherent jurisdiction order rather than an order provided for within the limitations of s 37(2) of the MCA 1973 (and other comparable statutory family law remedies). It looks at the factors the courts, and therefore parties in preparation of any application, will weigh before grant of any application.

To read the rest of this article, see July [2012] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here