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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

Medway Council v Root [2019] EWHC 669 (Fam) and Root v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1640

Sep 12, 2019, 14:39 PM
Reporting restrictions – Committal application – Hyperlink to judgment – Video recording of judgment being read – Publishing judgment.
The Family Division found that the mother had breached the orders made, however, she was permitted to purge her contempt as the purposes for which committal had been sought had been achieved.
Slug :
Meta Title : Medway Council v Root [2019] EWHC 669 (Fam) and Root v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1640
Meta Keywords : Reporting restrictions – Committal application – Hyperlink to judgment – Video recording of judgment being read – Publishing judgment.
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 11, 2019, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Theis J, Family Division, 25 February 2019 and 6 March 2019)

Reporting restrictions – Committal application – Hyperlink to judgment – Video recording of judgment being read – Publishing judgment.

The Family Division found that the mother had breached the orders made, however, she was permitted to purge her contempt as the purposes for which committal had been sought had been achieved.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.


This judgment was handed down in open court. The anonymity of the children must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

The publication of this judgment is also subject to a Reporting Restrictions Order made on 11.05.18 so that this judgment OR HYPERLINKS OR CITATIONS TO THE JUDGMENT is not to be published: (a) in conjunction with any other material that names the children or identifies them by photograph or any other image; or (b) on any on-line page containing any other material that names the children or identifies them by photograph or image where the existence of that material is known to the publisher.

Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWHC 669 (Fam)

Case No: ME16C01627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 25/02/2019 and 6/03/2019

Before:

MRS JUSTICE THEIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

Medway Council
Applicant

- and -

Sara Jayne Root
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Edward Elliott (instructed by Medway CC) for the Applicant
Mr William Dean (instructed by Sternberg Reed) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 20th & 25th February & 6th March 2019

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

 

Judgments: Medway Council v Root [2019] EWHC 669 (Fam) and Root v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1640

 

 

 

 


Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Publicity and Reporting
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from