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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 869

Sep 29, 2018, 17:04 PM
Slug : farley-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-no-2-2005-ewca-civ-869
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 22, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85549

(Court of Appeal; Lord Woolf CJ and Lord Philllips of Worth Matravers MR; 22 June 2005) [2005] 2 FLR 1075

An order had previously been made by the Court of Appeal on 27 January 2005 and the Court of Appeal held that it had lacked jurisdiction to hear that appeal in civil proceedings from a High Court judge who had heard an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of justices: Supreme Court Act 1981, ss 18 and 28A, as substituted by the Access to Justice Act 1999, s 61, and Westminster City Council v O'Reilly [2003] EWCA Civ 1007, [2004] 1 WLR 195. This was an exceptional case and the Court of Appeal could legitimately exercise a degree of procedural ingenuity, in the interests of the administration of justice, to rely on its earlier decision. The court would waive procedural requirements as to the form of an application for judicial review and treat an application as having been made by Mr Farley for judicial review. Sitting as a court of first instance, the court would grant leave to apply for judicial review but would refuse the application. On an undertaking from Mr Farley to lodge a notice of appeal, the court sitting as the Court of Appeal would then allow the appeal and grant a decision in the terms of the January order. The benefit would then be that if the House of Lords granted permission to appeal, the correctness of the Court of Appeal's reasoning would be considered, and, if permission were refused, the January judgment would be available for the future guidance of litigants. It would not be a judgment that caused confusion due to its uncertain status.

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