C (A Child)

C (A Child)

The judge exceeded her discretion and failed to ensure a fair hearing by refusing to allow the father to give evidence or his counsel to make submissions on the only remaining live issue—whether there was a need for continued supervision of contact—thus unlawfully curtailing the hearing and denying procedural fairness.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Contact Application / Appeal From Watford County Court, Final Hearing on Contact Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Child Law Contact Orders Fair Hearing Procedural Fairness Judicial Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Contact Application / Appeal From Watford County Court, Final Hearing on Contact Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father was afforded a fair hearing regarding his application for unsupervised contact with his child
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to hear oral evidence or submissions on the need for continued supervision of contact

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exceeded her discretion and failed to ensure a fair hearing by refusing to allow the father to give evidence or his counsel to make submissions on the only remaining live issue—whether there was a need for continued supervision of contact—thus unlawfully curtailing the hearing and denying procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Judge's order for contact varied to be interim only
  • Substantive hearing of the father's application for contact to take place on 23 February 2006 before a different circuit judge with family expertise