Re H (A Minor) (Wardship)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR GEORGE WALLER,SIR ROUALEYN CUMMING-BRUCE |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1985 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1985] EWCA Civ J0614-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | 85/0311 |
[1985] EWCA Civ J0614-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Sir George Waller
Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce
85/0311
MISS C.V. BEVINGTON, instructed by Messrs. Darlington & Parkinson, appeared for the Appellant (First Defendant).
MR P.F. SINGER, instructed by the Official Solicitor (the Guardian ad Litem of the Infant) appeared for the Second Defendant (Infant).
MR J.HARRIS, instructed by Messrs. T.H. Syed Rafique, appeared for the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This is an appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Head sitting as a High Court judge in wardship proceedings. The background of the case is this. The father and mother, the two parties, were married on 19th November 1981, the ward, the minor, was born on 25th December 1982, and the mother left the matrimonial home with the minor in August 1983. Within three days of her leaving, the minor was made a ward on the application of the father. There was an attempted reconciliation after that, and the wardship continued. On 9th November 1983 the order, which had given interim care and control to the father, gave care and control to the mother. Thereafter there were several applications in the wardship proceedings. I think it was at least five. From November 1983, however, the wife continued to have care and control. The Official Solicitor was appointed Guardian ad Litem in July 1984. In that same month the father complained of being impeded for access and made complaints, which were dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as a result of which, in October, he was prosecuted for wasting police time.
In November one summons, and in December another seven summonses, were issued by the father personally, alleging perjury on various occasions against the mother. These informations do not set out the precise perjury alleged, and I think it is not necessary in summary proceedings so to do. However, when the application was made to Judge Head, who was being asked in the application to breach the confidentiality of wardship proceedings by allowing copies of the affidavits to be sent to the magistrates who were going to deal with the summonses, I would have expected the application to have been clearly particularised. It was supported by an affidavit sworn by the father, which is voluminous and unspecific. Perusal of the details indicates, as I read it, a desire to retry all the various applications made in the wardship proceedings, and at one point there is a paragraph which says: "There are only 8 summonses for perjury against my ex-wife, because I felt that it would save valuable court time if I issued a summons for each affidavit, rather than for each incident [of] perjury (which total approx. 87)". In another part of the affidavit the husband asked that she, the wife, be remanded in custody.
Perusal of the details indicates a desire to retry all the various applications made in the wardship proceedings, but it is significant that in those various proceedings there was never an application to cross-examine. The application was made ex parte and the judge dealt with it ex parte, and he said (I read the first paragraph of his judgment): "In this case I have had a chance to see the affidavits and I take the view that it is not my function to tie the hands of the magistrates in their consideration, because they must see the whole of the evidence to see what was material. On the other hand, the affidavits concern the well-being of a ward. So, what I propose to do is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re L (Minors) (Document: Non-Party Disclosure)
...Francis v Francis (A Firm) [1988] 3 All ER 775. G v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council[1993] 1 FCR 357. H (A Minor) (Wardship), Re [1986] 1 FLR 132. Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280; [1982] 2 WLR 338; [1982] 1 All ER 532. JR v Merton London Borough[1992......
-
Re EW (Wardship: Jurisdiction)
...that an ex parte application should only be made when there was an urgent necessity for it: see Re H (A Minor) (Wardship Application) [1985] 3 All ER 1. In the present case there was no urgency. The ex parte application by the father was not justified and had achieved nothing since the ques......
- Practice Direction Placement of Wards of Court with a View to Adoption
-
Re G (A Minor) (Role of the Appellate court)
...in regard to one course or the other, in the short term or the long term." 10 In addition, Miss Rae referred us to the case of In re H. [1985] 1 WLR 1164 and in particular to a brief dictum from the judgment of Sir George Waller at page 1166: "Furthermore it should in my view be a guiding r......