header-logo header-logo

Judicial line: 12 September 2019

12 September 2019
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Judicial line
printer mail-detail
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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll