BSA v NVT

BSA v NVT

The court found that the December 2018 consent order, including its recitals, was enforceable and capable of having a penal notice attached, as it fell within the court's jurisdiction under Schedule 1. The father's grounds for appeal lacked merit, and the fresh evidence sought to be admitted was either immaterial, available with reasonable diligence, or irrelevant. The costs allowance order was properly made based on the evidence and the father's lack of disclosure. Permission to appeal was refused, and the stay on the order discharged.

Parties
Applicant: BSA; Respondent: NVT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Associated Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Costs Allowance Orders, Enforcement of Consent Orders, Legal Services Funding, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Children Law Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Costs Allowance Orders Enforcement of Consent Orders Legal Services Funding Appeals Procedure

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BSA

Applicant

NVT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Associated Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recitals in a consent order are enforceable by committal
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to attach a penal notice to the December 2018 order
  3. 3 Whether the costs allowance order was properly made

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the December 2018 consent order, including its recitals, was enforceable and capable of having a penal notice attached, as it fell within the court's jurisdiction under Schedule 1. The father's grounds for appeal lacked merit, and the fresh evidence sought to be admitted was either immaterial, available with reasonable diligence, or irrelevant. The costs allowance order was properly made based on the evidence and the father's lack of disclosure. Permission to appeal was refused, and the stay on the order discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to appeal
  • Refusal to admit fresh evidence