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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Re G (Contact) [2006] EWCA Civ 1507

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : re-g-contact-2006-ewca-civ-1507
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 28, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88961

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Richards LJJ, 5 October 2006)

An order made by an Australian court that the child should be educated at a specific school (at which the father had obtained a job) and for a particular pattern of contact had been rendered impractical by the mother's move to a different part of the country. It was not permissible, on the authorities, to make an order imposing a condition on the mother's residence order that she reside within the vicinity of the school. A further change since the Australian order was the child's increasing hostility towards contact with the father. The English court, which had confirmed the terms of the Australian order, had been wrong not to take account of the geographical issues, and the problems that had already arisen in relation to contact. The provision as to schooling was discharged, and the contact element was suspended pending further investigation of the situation in the High Court.

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