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...
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...
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...
PUBLICITY: Pelling v Bruce-Williams  EWCA Civ 1046
Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jul 25, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID :89017
(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ; 25 July 2006)
On reviewing an injunction against a father restraining publication of the child's name, address or any particulars which might lead to identification of the child, following an earlier judgment which had itself named the child and the parties, the court was prepared to discharge the injunction but refused to set the injunction aside. The earlier judgment had changed the practice of the court so that anonymity was no longer automatic in children's cases, but there had been no injustice at the time in the injunction having been made without first hearing the father as to the merits, and the wording had been in the common form at the time.