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.
A day in the life Of...
Edward Bennett
Edward Bennett
Read on
FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: Stringer v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 1617
Date:15 DEC 2006

(Court of Appeal; Chadwick, Wall and Lloyd LJJ; 29 November 2006)

Although the judge should not have attached conditions to the s 91(14) order, as set out in Re S; Re E [2006] EWCA Civ 1190, the judge had been entitled on the facts to make an order designed to last until each child reached the age of 16. Although a formal application for a s 91(14) order had not been served, the father had been given informal notice of the guardian's intention to apply for such an order; the judge should have addressed the procedural point in his judgment, but had been entitled to make the order even though the necessary formalities had not been observed. While it was not permissible to attach conditions to a s 91(14) order, it was permissible for a judge imposing a s 91(14) order to identify a particular issue and to suggest to the litigant that unless he could show that that particular issue had been addressed, any future application for permission to apply to the court for further relief was unlikely to be successful; there was a real and substantial difference between the two.