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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
View all articles
Authors

FAMILY PROCEEDING: Re C-J

Sep 29, 2018, 16:14 PM
Slug : re-c-j
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 10, 2006, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85125

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 10 April 2006)

The judge should not have made a s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) order of his own motion. It was inappropriate to employ s 91(14) of the 1989 Act when proceedings were ongoing and an application under s 91(14) of the 1989 Act had to be issued in advance and supported by evidence. This was not a case involving urgent or exceptional circumstances and the court should not have ignored the usual procedural steps of an application on notice supported by evidence. Nor was this a case in which the father had made repeated unreasonable applications to the court or where the father's conduct suggested that he was bringing proceedings in an abusive way or would threaten to do so in future.

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