L v F

L v F

The High Court judge erred in law and procedure by allowing the appeal on grounds not raised or argued, by requiring a linear approach to child arrangements and relocation, and by elevating the need for fact-finding on domestic abuse where the trial judge had properly exercised discretion. The Family Court judge's decision was thorough, welfare-focused, and justified; there was no error warranting interference. The appeal is allowed and the original order restored.

Parties
Appellant: L; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Private Law (relocation/child Arrangements) / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (russell J) After Initial Family Court Decision (hhj Owens)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; Family Court order restored.
Legal Topics
Relocation of Child, Child Arrangements, Domestic Abuse Allegations, Appeal Procedure, Shared Care, Welfare Checklist, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Law Relocation of Child Child Arrangements Domestic Abuse Allegations Appeal Procedure Shared Care Welfare Checklist +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Private Law (relocation/child Arrangements) / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (russell J) After Initial Family Court Decision (hhj Owens)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal from the Family Court's decision on relocation and child arrangements
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court judge failed to consider or make findings on allegations of domestic abuse
  3. 3 Whether the Family Court judge erred in approach to shared care and in departing from Cafcass recommendations

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in law and procedure by allowing the appeal on grounds not raised or argued, by requiring a linear approach to child arrangements and relocation, and by elevating the need for fact-finding on domestic abuse where the trial judge had properly exercised discretion. The Family Court judge's decision was thorough, welfare-focused, and justified; there was no error warranting interference. The appeal is allowed and the original order restored.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Original child arrangements order of HHJ Owens restored.
  • No order for rehearing; no order joining the child as a party.