BR v SN

BR v SN

A Hadkinson order can be made in Children Act proceedings only if, in addition to the five established requirements, the order accords with the welfare of the children. The judge below failed to directly consider the welfare of the children as paramount, which is a necessary requirement. The order made was disproportionate. A more limited Hadkinson order, requiring payment of £30,000 to enable the Mother’s representation at the final hearing, is proportionate and in the children’s welfare.

Parties
Appellant: B R; Respondent: S N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children Act Proceedings / Appeal From Hadkinson Order; Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Hadkinson order set aside and replaced with a limited order
Legal Topics
Hadkinson Orders, Children Act 1989, Legal Services Payment Orders (lspo), Contempt of Court, Equality of Arms, Welfare Principle, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Children Law Civil Procedure Hadkinson Orders Children Act 1989 Legal Services Payment Orders (lspo) Contempt of Court Equality of Arms +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B R

Appellant

S N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children Act Proceedings / Appeal From Hadkinson Order; Permission to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Hadkinson order can be made in Children Act proceedings and under what conditions
  2. 2 Whether the Hadkinson order made by HHJ O’Neill was proportionate and in the welfare interests of the children
  3. 3 Whether the failure to consider the welfare of the children as paramount invalidated the Hadkinson order

Ratio Decidendi

A Hadkinson order can be made in Children Act proceedings only if, in addition to the five established requirements, the order accords with the welfare of the children. The judge below failed to directly consider the welfare of the children as paramount, which is a necessary requirement. The order made was disproportionate. A more limited Hadkinson order, requiring payment of £30,000 to enable the Mother’s representation at the final hearing, is proportionate and in the children’s welfare.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Hadkinson order set aside and replaced with a limited order

Orders

  • Existing Hadkinson order set aside
  • Father’s CAO application stayed until he pays £30,000 to the Mother for legal representation at the final hearing