H v H (Irregularity: Effect on Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE PRESIDENT,LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH,LORD JUSTICE MAY |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J0331-2 |
| Date | 31 March 1982 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 82/0151 |
[1982] EWCA Civ J0331-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM ACCRINGTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Prestt, Q.C.)
Royal Courts of Justice
The President
(Sir John Arnold)
Lord Justice Eveleigh
and
Lord Justice May
82/0151
1981 D 034
MR. ROBERT STEPHEN DODDS (instructed by Messrs E. & B. Haworth & Nuttall, solicitors, Accrington) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Respondent).
MR. CHARLES BLOOM (instructed by Messrs Simpson & Ashworth, solicitors, Accrington) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Petitioner).
This is an unfortunate case in which we have to consider an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Prestt, Q.C. sitting at Accrington, when he ordered that the children concerned should remain in the joint custody of the parents, with care and control to the father. The appeal comes before the court, on the face of it, purely on the merits of the matter and on submissions to the extent to which the unsuccessful party in relation to the care and control claim was, or was not, wrongly persuaded to take the case rather more shortly than might otherwise have been the case through various representations which, it is said, should never have been made. But, when one looks at the underlying facts of the appeal, one finds that other considerations of a wider nature cannot be excluded from consideration. What had happened was this. There was in the case a welfare report and the author of that report, in conversation (for other reasons) with the learned judge, mentioned the instant case, explaining that it would not be convenient for the officer, because of other commitments, to remain during the hearing and the judge, upon hearing that, asked the welfare officer whether the report could be expanded in any way. The welfare officer explained to the judge that there was no longer the sort of possibility which perhaps had been indicated to some extent as a possibility, of an amicable disposal of the conflict and indicated that attitudes had hardened since the report was written. There was some discussion, more on the part of the judge than on the part of the welfare officer, as to the possible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D v D (Procedural Irregularity)
...in my view, to vitiate the decision at which he arrived." Mr Geekie also referred the court to H v H (Irregularity: Effect on Order) (1983) 4 FLR 119. In that case before the hearing between the parties, the Judge had a private conversation with the welfare officer in which the case was dis......
-
Re B (A Minor) (Irregularity of Practice)
...appearing for the parents to be made aware of the evidence. 13 Mr Marsden has referred us to the decision of this court in H v. H (Irregularity: Effect on Order) [1983] 4 FLR 119. That was a case in which the judge was hearing an application for custody of two children. Before the hearing, ......
-
Re M (A Child) (Children and Family Reporter: Disclosure)
...that were ever so, and the history of the evolution of this invaluable service is recorded in the judgment of Butler-Sloss LJ in the case of H v H and K v K [1990] Fam 86 at 110, it is certainly not so now. The CFR is a member of a newly created service the success of which depends in part ......
-
Re C (A Minor) (Evidence: Confidential Information)
...the Judge should be set aside, citing Re K (Infants) [1963] Ch 381; Fowler v Fowler [1963] P 311; H v H (Irregularity: Effect on Order) (1983) 4 FLR 119; and Re B (A Minor) [1990] FCR 463. Held – allowing the appeal: (1) In Re K (Infants) [1963] Ch 381 it was held that a Judge should not re......