Re O (Children)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE,LORD JUSTICE WALL |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 573 |
| Date | 28 April 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B4/2004/2341 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 573
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(HHJ MILLIGAN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Thorpe
Lord Justice Wall
B4/2004/2341
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON
MR ROBIN SPON-SMITH (Appeared as Advocate to the Court)
THE REPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
This is an appeal directed in by order of Ward LJ on 17 January. It raised an important point, which was also raised by two other cases, as to the proper approach to the determination of an application for the assistance of a McKenzie Friend. That issue has been argued out this morning with the assistance of the advocate to the court, Mr Spon-Smith, and will be the subject of a reserved judgment that will be given by this court in due course. All I do this afternoon is to explain briefly how we deal with the remaining paragraphs of the order of HHJ Milligan, made on 1 November 2004.
The points are really threefold. What the applicant sought from the judge on that day at a without notice hearing was a direction that the case should be transferred to the High Court, and separately that Judge Milligan should recuse himself from further sitting. Lastly, the applicant sought permission to issue an application for a residence or shared residence order. That was necessary since there was in place an order made under section 91(14) prohibiting issue without permission of the court.
The applicant informs us that the restriction under section 91(14) was imposed by Judge Milligan five years ago or thereabouts, and was of indefinite duration. That is a form of order the propriety of which has been frequently questioned in appeals to this court. Accordingly, I would take the unusual course of saying that the judge should have addressed the application and decided it on 1 November. Had he done so, he would properly have perceived the need at least to grant it rather than to adjourn it indefinitely. There needs to be real progress and we have the assurance that the solicitor for the respondent has accepted that permission might be granted by this court this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re B (A Child); Re O (Children)
...is already in the public domain in the context of the proceedings in which he has been engaged:—see the case incorrectly reported as In re O (children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759, [2006] Fam. 1 (hereinafter Re O) . This judgment will, of course, be handed down in public, but I do not propose to re......
-
Wee Leong Lum v Bun Chan
...60%. He contends that the lost value of NewCo should be not less than £200,000. 17 While the claimant relies upon Brownings v Brachers [2005] EWCA Civ 573 to support a contention that where a defendant has wrongfully deprived a party of something of value the court court should be generous......