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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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