header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013 / David Burrows
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Statute rules

International comity prevents disclosure of prosecution documents in family proceedings, as David Burrows reports

In P v P [2012] EWHC 1733 (Fam), Moylan J ordered production of information to Mrs Gohil against the Crown Prosecution Service (under Family Procedure Rules 2010 r 21.2). This information had been provided to the CPS under international provisions intended to assist criminal prosecution. Mr Gohil had already been successfully prosecuted. The information which Mrs Gohil sought might assist her application to set aside a financial remedy order, dated April 2004. She believed the order had been obtained against a background of misrepresentation on the part of Mr Gohil.

An appeal against the order by the CPS, in a case now entitled Crown Prosecution Service & Anor v Gohil [2012] EWCA Civ 1550; [2013] 1 FCR 371, was brought on for hearing quickly by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed (Lord Neuberger MR, who gave the judgment of the court, Hallett and McFarlane LJJ), and, on the face of it, its resolution was very simple, given the wording

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll