D (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 607 (17 April 2002)
All challenged orders were interlocutory directions within the trial judge's discretion. No grounds were advanced that cast doubt on their validity or propriety. There was no risk of injustice in refusing permission to appeal, extension of time, or permission to submit further evidence, and the applications were hopeless.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 607
- Parties
- Applicant/mother: Mrs D; Respondent/father: Mr D
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Permission to Appeal; Extension of Time; Permission to Submit Fresh Evidence
- Outcome
- Applications refused
- Legal Topics
- Children, Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Appeal Procedure, Interlocutory Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mrs D
Applicant/mother
Mr D
Respondent/father
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal; Extension of Time; Permission to Submit Fresh Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against interlocutory directions orders
- 2 Whether extension of time and permission to submit fresh evidence should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
All challenged orders were interlocutory directions within the trial judge's discretion. No grounds were advanced that cast doubt on their validity or propriety. There was no risk of injustice in refusing permission to appeal, extension of time, or permission to submit further evidence, and the applications were hopeless.
Court Disposition
Applications refused
Orders
- Applications for permission to appeal refused
- Application for extension of time refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment