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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re F (Restrictions on Applications) [2005] EWCA Civ 499

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : re-f-restrictions-on-applications-2005-ewca-civ-499
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 10, 2005, 08:33 AM
Article ID : 88501

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe and Scott Baker LJJ, 7 April 2005) [2005] 2 FLR 950

The CAFCASS officer had recommended indirect contact and the father agreed to accept the recommendation in an application for contact. The mother applied for a leave restriction under the Children Act 1989, s 91(14) on the morning of the contact hearing. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to consider the case history including the respondent's reaction to the without notice order, the content of the CAFCASS report, the circumstances surrounding applications being withdrawn or dismissed and, above all, the children and how renewed litigation may affect them. Where a fact-finding investigation in a contact case involving domestic violence disintegrated due to the application being withdrawn there was no need for the defensive case or for its investigation. The court could, with an easy mind, accept the compromise of indirect contact as it neither risked the welfare of the children nor required any steps for their protection. However, where a respondent abandoned the defence and thus endangered the welfare of the children, the judge may consider it appropriate to proceed with the investigation despite the absence of the principal defence evidence. Per curiam: it was inappropriate for counsel to learn of a cross application under s 91(14) from an opponent on the morning of the hearing.

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