Foenander v Foenander

Foenander v Foenander

The President was entitled to make a civil restraint order given the applicant's repeated, meritless applications to set aside the 1994 order, which had been fully litigated and upheld through all appellate avenues. The slip rule was properly used by Coleridge J to clarify the scope of the restraint order in line with the President's intention. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of rights; the applicant had ample opportunity to present his case. The applications for permission to appeal had no real prospect of success and were refused.

Parties
Appellant: Johan Michael Richard Foenander; Respondent: Carol Iris Foenander
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal Orders of the President (family Division) and Coleridge J
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Civil Restraint Orders, Appeals, Costs, Bankruptcy and Enforcement
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Civil Restraint Orders Appeals Costs Bankruptcy and Enforcement

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Michael Richard Foenander

Appellant

Carol Iris Foenander

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal Orders of the President (family Division) and Coleridge J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President's civil restraint order was properly made and justified
  2. 2 Whether the amendment by Coleridge J under the slip rule was lawful and reflected the President's intention
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness or access to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The President was entitled to make a civil restraint order given the applicant's repeated, meritless applications to set aside the 1994 order, which had been fully litigated and upheld through all appellate avenues. The slip rule was properly used by Coleridge J to clarify the scope of the restraint order in line with the President's intention. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of rights; the applicant had ample opportunity to present his case. The applications for permission to appeal had no real prospect of success and were refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal against the President's order of 24 March 2004 refused
  • Application for permission to appeal against Coleridge J's order of 22 June 2004 refused