header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 September 2019
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 12 September 2019

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
This week: respondent’s unknown address; CSA chargeback; venue for set aside; upping costs; summary judgment omission; right of audience.

GONE MISSING

Q Is the court empowered to make an order for disclosure of the proposed respondent’s address against a government department before the institution of family proceedings?

A ‘Requests’ to government departments (other than HMRC which requires an order of the High Court to be made) for disclosure of an address, are covered by FPR PD6C and presuppose that there are existing proceedings or at least proceedings being issued at the same time. FPR Part 21 does allow for disclosure by a non-party, but only where there are proceedings. There is no procedure for applications for disclosure to be made before issue, unless on an undertaking to issue. The Family Law Act 1986 s 33 can be used where the address might be held institutionally by, say, a local authority or school and while that is only to disclose a child’s whereabouts, invariably that leads to the proposed respondent.

The CSA conundrum

Q Your

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll