Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Louisa Gothard
Louisa Gothard
Senior Solicitor, Head of Family Law
Read on
COSTS: Re T (Order for Costs) [2005] EWCA Civ 311
Date:27 AUG 2005

(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.