CM v IP

CM v IP

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to implement participatory directions for a vulnerable party and did not properly consider or determine allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour relevant to welfare decisions, resulting in procedural irregularity and injustice.

Parties
Appellant: CM; Respondent: IP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Participatory Directions, Vulnerable Witnesses, Fact Finding Hearings, Child Arrangements, Coercive and Controlling Behaviour
Family Law Domestic Abuse Participatory Directions Vulnerable Witnesses Fact Finding Hearings Child Arrangements Coercive and Controlling Behaviour

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CM

Appellant

IP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court failed to implement participatory directions for a vulnerable party
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in refusing to determine allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour relevant to welfare decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to implement participatory directions for a vulnerable party and did not properly consider or determine allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour relevant to welfare decisions, resulting in procedural irregularity and injustice.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for re-hearing by a different circuit judge
  • Stay of arrangements ordered on 20 December 2021; revert to previous order