L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (20 December 2017)

L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (20 December 2017)

The High Court judge erred in law and procedure by allowing the appeal on grounds not raised or argued, misapplying the legal framework by requiring a linear determination of the child's main carer before considering relocation, and by failing to recognise that the Family Court judge had properly considered all relevant welfare factors. The Family Court was entitled to conclude that detailed findings on domestic abuse allegations were unnecessary as they were not central to the child's welfare in this case. The decision of the Family Court should be restored.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 2121
Parties
Appellant: L; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Private Law Family Appeal (relocation/child Arrangements) / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; Family Court order restored.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Child Arrangements Orders, Domestic Abuse Allegations, Appeals Procedure, Welfare Checklist, Shared Care, Fact Finding Hearings
Family Law Child Relocation Child Arrangements Orders Domestic Abuse Allegations Appeals Procedure Welfare Checklist Shared Care Fact Finding Hearings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Family Appeal (relocation/child Arrangements) / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal from the Family Court's refusal of relocation and order for shared care
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court judge failed to address domestic abuse allegations appropriately
  3. 3 Whether the correct legal approach was applied to relocation and child arrangements applications

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in law and procedure by allowing the appeal on grounds not raised or argued, misapplying the legal framework by requiring a linear determination of the child's main carer before considering relocation, and by failing to recognise that the Family Court judge had properly considered all relevant welfare factors. The Family Court was entitled to conclude that detailed findings on domestic abuse allegations were unnecessary as they were not central to the child's welfare in this case. The decision of the Family Court should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; Family Court order restored.

Orders

  • The order of Russell J is set aside.
  • The order of HHJ Owens is restored, refusing relocation and providing for shared care.