header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010
Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Locating missing respondents

Government departments are becoming increasingly more unco-operative...

Government departments are becoming increasingly more unco-operative about assisting in the disclosure of addresses of “missing” respondents so as to facilitate service of matrimonial proceedings, even where financial and/or child care issues have to be determined. Letters to the Department for Work and Pensions seem to end up with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) which says it will disclose nothing without a High Court order. What can be done about procuring help and from whom?

The arrangements for disclosure of addresses by government departments were agreed and set out in the Practice Direction (Disclosure of Addresses) [1989] 1 All ER 765, as amended (PD). However, most departments will not disclose information without a court order. The court may make an order for disclosure in cases falling within the terms of the PD or, in the case of a missing child, under the Family Law Act 1986, s 33, but not all departments will accept such an order as sufficient authority to disclose confidential information. In the case of HM

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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll