Pelling v Bruce-Williams

Pelling v Bruce-Williams

The injunction is to be discharged because the underlying proceedings are long since over and the order no longer serves any function. The order was lawful and in accordance with the practice in 1996, but continuation is no longer appropriate. The order will not be set aside as it would have been made in any event, even if the applicant had been fully heard.

Parties
Applicant: Dr M J Pelling; Respondent: Ms Veronica N. Bruce-Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Discharge or Set Aside Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Children Proceedings, Open Justice, Natural Justice
Family Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Anonymity Orders Children Proceedings Open Justice Natural Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr M J Pelling

Applicant

Ms Veronica N. Bruce-Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Discharge or Set Aside Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction made on 20 June 1996 should be discharged or set aside
  2. 2 Whether the injunction was made in breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the injunction remains effective after the conclusion of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction is to be discharged because the underlying proceedings are long since over and the order no longer serves any function. The order was lawful and in accordance with the practice in 1996, but continuation is no longer appropriate. The order will not be set aside as it would have been made in any event, even if the applicant had been fully heard.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged

Orders

  • The order against publicity made by this court on 20 June 1996 is discharged.