O v O

O v O

There was no error of law or principle in the lower courts' orders; findings of fact were supported by evidence; appeals against refusal of permission to appeal are not permitted; academic appeals will not be entertained; and the welfare of the children justified the orders made. All applications were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Oritsejaro; Respondent: Mrs Oritsejaro
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeals
Outcome
All applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Occupation Orders, Residence of Children, Appeals Procedure, Jurisdiction, Prohibited Steps Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Orders Occupation Orders Residence of Children Appeals Procedure Jurisdiction Prohibited Steps Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Oritsejaro

Applicant

Mrs Oritsejaro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower courts erred in granting non-molestation and occupation orders against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact by the lower courts were erroneous or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing or his human rights were infringed

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law or principle in the lower courts' orders; findings of fact were supported by evidence; appeals against refusal of permission to appeal are not permitted; academic appeals will not be entertained; and the welfare of the children justified the orders made. All applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted to obtain a copy of the judgment at public expense