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

COSTS: Re T (Order for Costs) [2005] EWCA Civ 311

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : re-t-order-for-costs-2005-ewca-civ-311-0
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 27, 2005, 09:15 AM
Article ID : 87859

(21 March 2005; Potter and Wall LJJ; Court of Appeal) [2005] 2 FLR 681

There was a limit to which allowance could be made for a parent who deliberately and unreasonably obstructed contact by the other parent in circumstances where, on any objective analysis, contact would be in the interests of the child. Where a judge had carefully investigated the disputed areas of fact which had given rise to a parent's objections to contact, and had found in terms that the child enjoyed a good relationship with the non-resident parent, that there was no reason for the resident parent to have any concerns and that there was no reason why contact should not take place, a reasonable parent, even if anxious, had no grounds for failing to implement the order. If in these circumstances the case had to return to court because of unreasonable failure to implement the order or an agreement as to contact, it was open to the court to find that the parent had been acting unreasonably and that this had led to unnecessary litigation, and to make an order for costs against the parent.

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