R v R (Family Court: Procedural Fairness) [[2014] EWFC 48 (11 December 2014)

R v R (Family Court: Procedural Fairness) [[2014] EWFC 48 (11 December 2014)

The appeal was allowed because the without notice order was improperly made on insufficient evidence, the order as drawn did not reflect the judge's intention, the respondent was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the order, and the court failed to apply the rules on relief from sanctions justly, resulting in procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2014] EWFC 48
Parties
Applicant: Mr R; Respondent: Mrs R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Act 1996 Proceedings (non Molestation and Occupation Orders) / Appeal Against Case Management Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; all previous orders set aside; proceedings resolved by undertakings and a child arrangements order.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Without Notice Applications, Case Management, Relief From Sanctions, Access to Children, Legal Aid Disparity
Family Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Orders Without Notice Applications Case Management Relief From Sanctions Access to Children Legal Aid Disparity

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr R

Applicant

Mrs R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Act 1996 Proceedings (non Molestation and Occupation Orders) / Appeal Against Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the without notice non-molestation order was properly made
  2. 2 Whether the case management and procedural orders deprived the respondent of a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanction for late evidence should have been granted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the without notice order was improperly made on insufficient evidence, the order as drawn did not reflect the judge's intention, the respondent was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the order, and the court failed to apply the rules on relief from sanctions justly, resulting in procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; all previous orders set aside; proceedings resolved by undertakings and a child arrangements order.

Orders

  • All previous orders set aside
  • Non-molestation and occupation proceedings concluded by undertakings