Stringer v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 1617 (29 November 2006)

Stringer v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 1617 (29 November 2006)

The Court of Appeal held that the conditions attached to the section 91(14) order (requiring psychiatric or psychological reports and treatment as a precondition to further applications) were impermissible and must be deleted. The judge was entitled to make a section 91(14) order and to set its duration until the children reached 16, given the history and facts, but not to impose substantive conditions. Procedural fairness was not fatally breached by lack of formal notice, given the circumstances and Mr. Stringer's informal notice.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1617
Parties
Appellant: Martin Frank Stringer; Respondent: Lesley Stringer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law, Private Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Children Act 1989 Section 91(14), Restriction on Applications, Procedural Fairness, Contact and Residence Orders, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Children Act 1989 Section 91(14) Restriction on Applications Procedural Fairness Contact and Residence Orders 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Frank Stringer

Appellant

Lesley Stringer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law, Private Law Children) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to attach conditions to a section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order
  2. 2 Whether a section 91(14) order should have been made at all
  3. 3 Whether the duration of the order (until the children reached 16) was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the conditions attached to the section 91(14) order (requiring psychiatric or psychological reports and treatment as a precondition to further applications) were impermissible and must be deleted. The judge was entitled to make a section 91(14) order and to set its duration until the children reached 16, given the history and facts, but not to impose substantive conditions. Procedural fairness was not fatally breached by lack of formal notice, given the circumstances and Mr. Stringer's informal notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Conditions attached to the section 91(14) order are deleted.
  • Reference to Judge Mitchell hearing future applications is deleted.