header-logo header-logo

Under orders

07 October 2010 / Claire Devine
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Claire Devine expands on why s 91(14) orders should be issued sparingly

In the Court of Appeal case of Re A (Contact: Section 91(14)) [2010] 2 FLR 151, the child in question was aged four years and seven months. The child’s parents were never married but the father had parental responsibility by virtue of his name being entered on the birth certificate. The child lived with his mother but had substantial contact with the father. There were difficulties with the contact arrangements and proceedings were issued. The application to the Court of Appeal resulted from an order made in the Nottingham County Court on 28 September 2009 in which an order was made, inter alia, under the Children Act 1989, s 91(14) providing that no further applications could be made without leave in respect of the child for 18 months.

Case history

The father and the mother separated in May 2007. Initially, contact was dealt with by consent. Proceedings were, however, commenced on the father’s application in March 2008 following difficulties as to the contact

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll