E v M

E v M

The appeal against the child arrangement orders fails because the recorder's decisions were based on the evidence, consistent with the child's welfare, and free from procedural irregularity. However, the appeal against the Section 91(14) order succeeds because E did not have sufficient notice of the application, and the recorder failed to apply the required legal principles and balancing exercise.

Parties
Appellant: E; 1st Respondent: M; 2nd Respondent: Y (A Child by her guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Final Child Arrangement Orders and Related Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to the Section 91(14) order, which is set aside and remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Contact Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Law Child Arrangements Contact Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Section 91(14) Orders Appeal 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Appellant

M

1st Respondent

Y (A Child by her guardian)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Final Child Arrangement Orders and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recorder's child arrangement orders were wrong or inconsistent with the child's welfare
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious procedural irregularity regarding the admission of evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Section 91(14) order was made in accordance with proper procedure and legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against the child arrangement orders fails because the recorder's decisions were based on the evidence, consistent with the child's welfare, and free from procedural irregularity. However, the appeal against the Section 91(14) order succeeds because E did not have sufficient notice of the application, and the recorder failed to apply the required legal principles and balancing exercise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to the Section 91(14) order, which is set aside and remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Child arrangement orders upheld: Y to live with M, indirect contact with E only as specified.
  • Prohibited steps order upheld: E not to attend Y's school without prior authority.