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

WARDSHIP/COSTS: S v S [2008] EWHC 2288 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : s-v-s-2008-ewhc-2288-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 17, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87289

(Family Division; Munby J; 6 October 2008)

There was no excuse for people making inappropriate use of wardship; there seemed to be dauntless enthusiasm by counsel to persist in misconceived attempts to persuade judges in the Family Division to deal with matters that, if they were justiciable at all, were matters for the Administrative Court. It was clear that wardship was not to be used in such a way as to prevent the exercise of statutory powers. Because wardship acted as a brake upon the Secretary of State's power to remove a child from the jurisdiction, the Family Division must exercise its wardship powers with great care and circumspection and ensure that wardship was not used for an impermissible purpose. It was outside the lawful exercise of any power of a judge in the Family Division to make an order directing the Secretary of State to release the dependant of a failed asylum seeker from administrative detention. An attempt to put pressure upon the Secretary of State by making a declaration concerning the child's health was a classic example of an abuse of the wardship process. An abusive application, in the sense of being deliberately contrived as a means of obstructing the Secretary of State, would in future be likely to be met with an order for costs.

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