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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS/ENFORCEMENT: Re C (Costs: Enforcement of Foreign Contact Order) [2007] EWHC 1993 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : re-c-costs-enforcement-of-foreign-contact-order-2007-ewhc-1993-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 2, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88325

(Family Division; Munby J; 2 August 2007)

In a case in which the mother had conceded during the hearing that she did not have any effective answer to the father's application under Art 41 of Brussels II Revised, seeking enforcement of an Italian contact order, the judge commented adversely on the level of costs incurred by the father's solicitors, which amounted to no less than £18,260.08. Unless and until such time as it emerged that the defendant in his or her own evidence, or otherwise, was able to articulate some basis of defence requiring the submission by the applicant of more substantial material, a case based upon Art 41 should proceed with the maximum of despatch and the minimum of delay and, as part of those necessary objectives, the minimum of documentation. In the instant case vast bundles had been generated, including a substantial volume of material translated in anticipation of defences that the mother had not raised; it might be thought that, in the absence of a defence identified in materials filed by the defendant mother, all that was required in support of the originating summons was a very brief formal affidavit, deposing to the fact of and exhibiting the relevant orders of the foreign court and the relevant certificate. In the circumstances of the case it was appropriate to make the mother pay only a modest contribution to the father's costs.

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