header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

O v P [2015] EWHC 935 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 154 (Jun)

A child had been made the subject of non-molestation injunctions, which extended to her mother, while she was a ward of court. As she approached her 18th birthday, the mother applied to court for an extension of the injunction to extend indefinitely beyond the conclusion of the wardship proceedings. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that it had jurisdiction to make such an order, although the mother and child lived in Australia, as did the person the order was directed towards. Such an order could be extended beyond the conclusion of the wardship and the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such an order, either under its wardship jurisdiction or under its inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults.

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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll