Porchetta v Porchetta

JurisdictionScotland
Date1986
CourtCourt of Session (Outer House)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
8 cases
  • F.a.g. Or W. V. J.l.w. And K.h.w.
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 2 August 1999
    ...under the Act is still the same as that set out in Sanderson v. McManus 1997 SCLR 281, and in the earlier cases of Porchetta v. Porchetta 1986 SLT 105 and Russell v. Russell 1991 SCLR 49. The consequence of approaching an application for a contact order in the foregoing way is that a sherif......
  • Re X and Y (leave to remove from jurisdiction: no order principle)
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 18 December 2000
    ...70, [1998] Fam Law 22. P (L M) (orse E) v P (G E) [1970] 3 All ER 659; sub nom Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, CA. Porchetta v Porchetta 1986 SLT 105, Scot HL. S (removal from jurisdiction), Re [1999] 1 FLR 850, [1999] Fam Law 219. S v M (access order) [1997] 1 FLR 980; sub nom Sanderson v M......
  • Af Against Ff
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 11 December 2015
    ...approach, once the welfare of the child was made the paramount consideration, in the opinion which he delivered in Porchetta v Porchetta 1986 SLT 105. In that opinion…..he said that a father does not have an absolute right to access to his child, that he is only entitled to access if the co......
  • Fiona Ann Grant Or White V. James Lawrence White (ap)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 6 March 2001
    ...of, and promote the welfare of, his child. In other words, the position remained, as Lord Dunpark had held in Porchetta v. Porchetta 1986 S.L.T. 105, that "A father does not have an absolute right to access to his child. He is only entitled to access if the court is satisfied that that is i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • “Dear Judge, I am writing to you because I think it's pathetic”: Re A-H (Children)
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh Law Review No. , June 2009
    • 1 June 2009
    ...neither genuine nor reasoned.2222See e.g. Blance v Blance 1978 SLT 74; Brannigan v Brannigan 1979 SLT (Notes) 73. Cf Porchetta v Porchetta 1986 SLT 105; Russell v Russell 1991 SCLR 429. The contemporary requirement that consideration be given to the child's expressed views is the corollary ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT