header-logo header-logo

19 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Q v Q (No 3) [2016] EWFC 5, [2016] All ER (D) 20 (Feb)

The Family Division refused the application by the father, a convicted sex offender for contact with his son as no method of managing the kind of dangers that a convicted sex offender like the father might pose even to his own son had been put before the court. The mother’s application for an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 would be refused as the present case was not one involving repeated applications. Nor had it displayed on the part of the father the kind of behaviour which, typically, founded a successful application for such an order.

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll