header-logo header-logo

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

Judicial line: 12 September 2019

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll