Judgment Set Aside for Equitable Forebearance. A local authority successfully applied for an order to set aside a judgment against it. The authority originally made an admission of primary liability (subject to a reduction for contributory negligence) but sought to resile from this in its Defence. The allocation questionnaire, case summary and witness statements were all prepared on the basis that liability was in issue; the Judge held that this amounted to approbation and reprobation. It was h ...
|
The appellant mother in the proceedings in R (MG) v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1577 (above) had appealed against an order made by a family proceedings court under the Children Act 1989 s.91(14), which prevented her from applying for the further assessment of the educational needs of her son (K) without permission from the court. HELD: The s.91(14) direction was not one that it was properly open to the recorder to make, and might have appeared to convey the exercise by the ...
|
Within this matter the court isseud procedural guidance in respect of applications under art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdictions and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parenta responsibility) pending the entry into force of the revised Family Proceedings Rules S! 1991/1247.
|
The CA held that the judgment of a Recorder making a residence order in favour of a mother in circumstances where there was strong expert evidence urging an order in favour of the fathre could not stand. The judge had failed to give appropriate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence and the matter was therefore remitted to a different judge.
|
Within this matter the court isseud procedural guidance in respect of applications under art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdictions and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parenta responsibility) pending the entry into force of the revised Family Proceedings Rules S! 1991/1247.
|
The CA held that the judgment of a Recorder making a residence order in favour of a mother in circumstances where there was strong expert evidence urging an order in favour of the fathre could not stand. The judge had failed to give appropriate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence and the matter was therefore remitted to a different judge.
|
Facts: J was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a tariff of 1 year and 295 days which expired in July 2007. His ongoing detention was therefore under the preventive detention part of the sentence, and he was entitled to seek an order for his release from the Parole Board. A hearing before the Board had been fixed for September 2007, but it was suggested that there was limited prospect of an order for release as he would not be able to demons ...
|
D was sentenced to an IPP with a tariff period of 1 year 295 days. At the time of his parole hearing he had not been provided with an opportunity to complete relevant courses so as to be able to demonstrate that he did not pose a risk to the public. It was argued that despite the fact he could not satisfy the test for statutory release, his continued detention was unlawful. Held: The court would issue a declaration that D was unlawfully imprisoned. That declaration would be stayed pending an app ...
|
D was sentenced to an IPP with a tariff period of 1 year 295 days. At the time of his parole hearing he had not been provided with an opportunity to complete relevant courses so as to be able to demonstrate that he did not pose a risk to the public. It was argued that despite the fact he could not satisfy the test for statutory release, his continued detention was unlawful. Held: The court would issue a declaration that D was unlawfully imprisoned. That declaration would be stayed pending an app ...
|
There was no established practice in relation to applications for administration orders similar to that which applied in relation to winding-up petitions where there was a disputed debt or cross-claim and it was not appropriate to create such a practice.
|
| 1 |