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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re L (Application Hearing: Legal Representation)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:41 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-l-application-hearing-legal-representation
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 7, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101583

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Lloyd Jones LJJ, Warren J, 1 Feb 2013)

The father applied for contact with his 12-year-old child who he hadn't seen since she was a baby. The father's relationship with his solicitors deteriorated and eventually they informed him that they were no longer prepared to act for him. The trial bundles were sent to the father but they only arrived on the morning of the hearing after the father had left to attend court.

At the hearing the father sought an adjournment in order to seek representation and informed the judge that a consultant psychiatrist had informed him that he was not fit to present his case. The judge refused the application and made an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 preventing the father from making further applications.

The father's appeal was allowed. While an adjournment presented the risk of delay and pressures on the court's resources the importance of the fresh evidence from the psychiatrist had to be recognised. Had the correspondence from the psychiatrist been available to the judge it was arguable that he would have made a contrary decision in respect of what was a vulnerable applicant.


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