T (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 719 (14 July 2015)

T (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 719 (14 July 2015)

The judge erred by making substantive orders in the father's absence based on evidence he had not seen or had opportunity to challenge, and after indicating she would not determine such issues. The judge failed to adequately consider the welfare checklist and Article 8 rights, and did not justify the necessity or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 719
Parties
First Appellant: Father; Second Appellants: Paternal Grandparents; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Child (by her Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a Family Division judge.
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Judicial Recusal, Procedural Fairness, Article 8 ECHR, Welfare Principle
Family Law Children Law Contact Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Judicial Recusal Procedural Fairness Article 8 ECHR Welfare Principle

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

First Appellant

Paternal Grandparents

Second Appellants

Mother

First Respondent

Child (by her Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicially-assisted conciliation disqualified the judge from hearing the substantive application
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in making substantive orders in the absence of the father and on untested evidence
  3. 3 Whether proper regard was given to the welfare checklist and Article 8 rights in suspending contact

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by making substantive orders in the father's absence based on evidence he had not seen or had opportunity to challenge, and after indicating she would not determine such issues. The judge failed to adequately consider the welfare checklist and Article 8 rights, and did not justify the necessity or proportionality of the section 91(14) order. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a Family Division judge.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to the father.
  • Appeal allowed; orders of 3 July 2014 (suspension of contact and section 91(14) order) set aside.