Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing: May Teaser

David Burrows Family Law 0 Comments

Appeals: time for appeal and clarification of judge’s reasons

What can a prospective appellant do if he or she has a judgment which needs clarification by the judge before a notice of appeal can be filed? Meanwhile the party knows that time is running in the Court of Appeal for an appeal notice to be filed.

The Court of Appeal considered this in Re P (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 720 in an appeal concerned a proposed appeal where the judge failed – over many months – to provide a clear and prompt judgment to explain her original determination (communicated in abbreviated form, as explained below); and then to fail to provide the parties with clarification of reasons for her judgment as permissibly requested by them.

And as the time went by, the 21-day limit from the court’s decision – demanded by CPR 1998, r 52.12(2); and explained by Sayers v Clarke Walker (a firm): Practice Note [2002] EWCA Civ 645, [2002] 1 WLR 3095 – the time limit ticked over.  The Court of Appeal in Re P offered guidance how to deal with judge’s delays; but the question of the r 52.12(2) time limit remains at large, as discussed in the article.

Cases of the month: May 2018

S (Abduction: Hague Convention or BIIA) [2018] EWCA Civ 1226 (25 May 2018) – the court for the jurisdiction from which a child is abducted has jurisdiction to hear a child abduction application ([44]; and see Brussels IIA Art 2(7)) even though the child is now in another jurisdiction.

Re R-E (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 953 (1 May 2018) – a mother’s application to ‘revisit’ an earlier care order was correctly dismissed summarily by the court below: there was no real reason to conclude that the earlier proceedings required revisiting.

A Local Authority v M & N (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order) [2018] EWHC 870 (Fam) (19 April 2018), Hayden J – the local authority was granted a FGMPO (Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, Sch 2 para 1) to prevent a mother taking her young daughter to Sudan. The state had a positive duty to intervene.

KA v MA (Prenuptial Agreement: Needs) [2018] EWHC 499 (Fam) (13 March 2018), Russell J – a pre-nuptial agreement was only one of the factors to take into account when assessing W’s needs on divorce.

Re G (A Child: transparency in the family courts) [2018] EWHC 1301 (Fam) (18 May 2018), Sir James Munby P – (1) mother’s and (2) her older son’s applications for court documents from 2001 child residence proceedings (following long and detailed hearing before Singer J).

David Burrows

May 2018

Family Law Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Family Law Service. The full briefing is available here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *