De Montford v McKenzie [2004] EWCA Civ 1189 (17 August 2004)

De Montford v McKenzie [2004] EWCA Civ 1189 (17 August 2004)

The judge was entitled to proceed with the hearing as the allegations were sufficiently clear, the respondent was not prejudiced, and the findings of fact were justified on the evidence. The penalties imposed were appropriate and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1189
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Angela De Montford; Respondent/appellant: Raymond McKenzie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Committal Orders in County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Breach of Undertaking, Procedural Fairness, Harassment, Injunctions
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal for Breach of Undertaking Procedural Fairness Harassment Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela De Montford

Applicant/respondent

Raymond McKenzie

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Committal Orders in County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal proceedings complied with procedural requirements under Order 29, Rule 4A of the County Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact by the trial judge were justified
  3. 3 Whether the penalties imposed were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to proceed with the hearing as the allegations were sufficiently clear, the respondent was not prejudiced, and the findings of fact were justified on the evidence. The penalties imposed were appropriate and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suspended committal orders and injunctions against Mr McKenzie remain in force