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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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