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

Passport seizure after Young v Young Part 2

Sep 29, 2018, 18:14 PM
Slug : NasreenPearce-JulyFLJ2012
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2012, 05:17 AM
Article ID : 99175

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

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