Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Re X and Y (Bundles) [2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : re-x-and-y-bundles-2008-ewhc-2058-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 22, 2008, 09:41 AM
Article ID : 87199

(Family Division; Munby J; 22 August 2008)

It was over 8 years since Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) [2001] 1 FLR 536 had been issued, and over 2 years since Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in all Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court) [2006] 2 FLR 199; the continuing failure by the professions to comply with their obligations regarding bundles was simply unacceptable. In the instant case the various errors had led to an adjournment; it would not be fair or just to expose a practitioner to the sanction of being publicly identified in judgments delivered in open court without fair public warning having been given that the sanction was available and that it might be applied in appropriate cases. The professions had however now been warned; next time a defaulter might not be so lucky as to go unidentified.

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