Pengelly v Enright-Redding

Pengelly v Enright-Redding

The appeal was allowed to the extent that a shared residence order should be made, as it reflects the reality of Megan's living arrangements and both parents' equal responsibility. The judge's reasons for refusing the order were unsatisfactory and not supported by evidence of risk or instability.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Brian David Pengelly; Respondent/respondent: Amanda Julie Enright-Redding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exeter County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Shared Residence Order, Parental Responsibility, Child Welfare, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Shared Residence Order Parental Responsibility Child Welfare Contact Arrangements

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian David Pengelly

Applicant/appellant

Amanda Julie Enright-Redding

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exeter County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shared residence order should be made for the child Megan
  2. 2 Whether the father's share of Megan's time should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed to the extent that a shared residence order should be made, as it reflects the reality of Megan's living arrangements and both parents' equal responsibility. The judge's reasons for refusing the order were unsatisfactory and not supported by evidence of risk or instability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Substitute a shared residence order for the residence order of 19 December 2002
  • Encourage parties to participate in mediation under the Court of Appeal ADR scheme