header-logo header-logo

Family Procedure (Amendment) (No 2) Rules 2012 (SI 2012/1462)

13 June 2012
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

The Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 31.17 currently provide that a registered order cannot be enforced until the time limit for appeals has expired.

Commencement date
1 July 2012

Legislation Affected

SI 2010/2955 amended


Summary

Legislative Background

The time limit for appeals is set at one or two months (two months if the person bringing the appeal is habitually resident outside the UK).

What’s Changing?

The Rules amend the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 31.17.

They give the court a discretion to permit urgent enforcement where necessary to secure a child’s welfare notwithstanding the general position that enforcement is suspended pending expiry of relevant appeal periods.

The amendment is necessary in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Health Service Executive v SC and AC, Attorney General intervening (case no

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll