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 R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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