B (a child) O (children), Re [2006] EWCA Civ 1199 (25 August 2006)

B (a child) O (children), Re [2006] EWCA Civ 1199 (25 August 2006)

Both applications for permission to appeal were refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the lower courts. The trial judges' findings regarding the applicants' obsessive and hostile conduct, the emotional risk to the children, and the appropriateness of section 91(14) orders were supported by the evidence. The applicants' attacks on the judges and other parties were unfounded and did not establish grounds for appeal.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1199
Parties
Applicant: David Bradford; Applicant: Shaun O'Connell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Residence Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Litigants in Person, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Contact Residence Orders Section 91(14) Orders Litigants in Person 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Bradford

Applicant

Shaun O'Connell

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower courts erred in refusing contact and residence applications by the fathers
  2. 2 Whether the section 91(14) orders were properly made
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were denied a fair hearing or their human rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications for permission to appeal were refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the lower courts. The trial judges' findings regarding the applicants' obsessive and hostile conduct, the emotional risk to the children, and the appropriateness of section 91(14) orders were supported by the evidence. The applicants' attacks on the judges and other parties were unfounded and did not establish grounds for appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • All applications for permission to appeal are dismissed.
  • Section 91(14) orders remain in force as imposed by the lower courts.