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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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