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
Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
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to the without notice order, the content of the CAFCASS report, the circumstances surrounding applications being withdrawn or dismissed and, above all, the children and how renewed litigation may affect them.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