header-logo header-logo

Families at war: showing some restraint

26 May 2023 / Clare Williams
Issue: 8026 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail
123336
Clare Williams provides a practical guide to the court’s options for civil restraint orders in family practice
  • Rarely used in family law, civil restraint orders (CROs) require a party to obtain the permission of the court before making particular applications or claims.
  • The three types of CRO (limited, extended and general) represent a scale of increasing severity.

The civil restraint order (CRO) is seldom encountered in family practice. Reported examples frequently share features such as extreme acrimony and a tortuous procedural history; occasionally, CROs are made following years-long vendettas against the legal system. Difficult cases are nothing strange to the family lawyer, but it is important for practitioners to be aware of when and how the court can exercise one of its most extreme powers of case management.

What is a CRO?

CROs require a party to obtain the permission of the court before making particular applications or claims. They function as a filtering mechanism rather than an outright ban. The leading (civil) case is Bhamjee v Forsdick

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll