P (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1462 (23 September 2002)

P (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1462 (23 September 2002)

The judge below did not err in refusing the adjournment as the applicant had sufficient time and opportunity to prepare. Article 6(3) ECHR was not engaged as this was not a criminal case. The occupation order was justified given the unsatisfactory accommodation of the wife and children, the applicant's ability to be rehoused, and the proper consideration of all relevant factors. No procedural unfairness or discrimination was established.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1462
Parties
Applicant/father: Mr Pine; Respondent/wife: Mrs Pine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and stay dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Occupation Orders, Non Molestation Orders, Adjournment of Hearings, Article 6 ECHR, Interim Residence Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Occupation Orders Non Molestation Orders Adjournment of Hearings Article 6 ECHR Interim Residence Orders

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

Mr Pine

Applicant/father

Mrs Pine

Respondent/wife

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment to the applicant father
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to allow a McKenzie friend to act as advocate breached Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the occupation order was properly made given the interests in the property and the impact on the applicant's livelihood

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below did not err in refusing the adjournment as the applicant had sufficient time and opportunity to prepare. Article 6(3) ECHR was not engaged as this was not a criminal case. The occupation order was justified given the unsatisfactory accommodation of the wife and children, the applicant's ability to be rehoused, and the proper consideration of all relevant factors. No procedural unfairness or discrimination was established.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and stay dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Application for stay of execution dismissed