A & T (Children), Re (Appeal: Duration of Section 91(14) Order) [2025] EWHC 3052 (Fam) (19 November 2025)

A & T (Children), Re (Appeal: Duration of Section 91(14) Order) [2025] EWHC 3052 (Fam) (19 November 2025)

The three-year blanket restriction imposed by the judge below was disproportionate given the absence of inappropriate litigation conduct by F. The correct approach was to restrict applications for 'lives with' orders for three years, 'spend time with' orders for 15 months, and discharge restrictions on other section 8 orders immediately. The welfare of the children justified a tailored, proportionate pause from litigation, not a blanket ban.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3052 (Fam)
Parties
Appellant: F; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Duration of Section 91(14) Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; section 91(14) order varied.
Legal Topics
Section 91(14) Orders, Children Act 1989, Duration of Barring Orders, Child Welfare, Litigation Harm
Family Law Section 91(14) Orders Children Act 1989 Duration of Barring Orders Child Welfare Litigation Harm

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Appellant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Duration of Section 91(14) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the three-year duration of the section 91(14) order proportionate?
  2. 2 Should restrictions on applications under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 be maintained for both parents?
  3. 3 Did the judge below err in law regarding the proportionality and justification for the order's duration?

Ratio Decidendi

The three-year blanket restriction imposed by the judge below was disproportionate given the absence of inappropriate litigation conduct by F. The correct approach was to restrict applications for 'lives with' orders for three years, 'spend time with' orders for 15 months, and discharge restrictions on other section 8 orders immediately. The welfare of the children justified a tailored, proportionate pause from litigation, not a blanket ban.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; section 91(14) order varied.

Orders

  • Restriction on applications for 'lives with' orders maintained for three years.
  • Restriction on applications for 'spend time with' orders extended to 30 April 2026 (approx. 15 months).