L (A Child)

L (A Child)

Fresh medical evidence established that the appellant suffered from a Paranoid Personality Disorder and was not fit to represent himself. Had the trial judge had this evidence, he would have been bound to grant an adjournment to allow the appellant to secure representation. Refusal to adjourn in these circumstances was a breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Parties
Appellant Father: Mr LL; Respondent Mother: (Name not specified, L's mother)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Contact/residence / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Adjournment and Imposing S.91(14) Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Right to Fair Trial (article 6 Echr), Litigant in Person, Adjournment, Legal Representation
Family Law Human Rights Child Contact Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Right to Fair Trial (article 6 Echr) Litigant in Person Adjournment Legal Representation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr LL

Appellant Father

(Name not specified, L's mother)

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Contact/residence / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Adjournment and Imposing S.91(14) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to adjourn the trial after the appellant's solicitors ceased to act was a denial of justice or breach of Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the imposition of a section 91(14) order was appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh medical evidence established that the appellant suffered from a Paranoid Personality Disorder and was not fit to represent himself. Had the trial judge had this evidence, he would have been bound to grant an adjournment to allow the appellant to secure representation. Refusal to adjourn in these circumstances was a breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted for trial de novo before a different judge
  • Section 91(14) order set aside