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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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