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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

APPEALS: Bracknell Forest Borough v N [2006] The Times November 6

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Smith and Wall LJJ; 25 October 2006)
Slug : bracknell-forest-borough-v-n-2006-the-times-november-6
Meta Title : APPEALS: Bracknell Forest Borough v N [2006] The Times November 6
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 25, 2006, 10:16 AM
Article ID : 86673

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Smith and Wall LJJ; 25 October 2006)

Refusing an application to adjourn an application to appeal, which had been made because the listing clashed with a Family Division hearing in which leading counsel was involved, the Court noted that it was a well-recognised principle in the Court of Appeal that permissions applications would not be adjourned for the convenience of counsel. In a case such as the present an application should have been made for the Court of Appeal to sit early and the indulgence sought of the trial judge for the other case to start late.

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