Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Laura Briggs KC and Ian Black (acting pro bono and under the direct access scheme) for the Appellant (Father) Andrew Fox (acting pro bono but instructed by Jones Myers, Solicitors) for the Respondent (Mother) Hearing date: 16 March 2023. Further written submissions: 23 March 2023 ____________________
It will be apparent from this communication, within only a few weeks of the costs order, that the mother was asserting that she would not be able to meet the order made against her.
i) She is financially unable to satisfy the costs order, given her modest income and means, and having regard to the costs which she has incurred over these lengthy proceedings. She complains that Francis J "never requested a Form E from the mother at the time of the costs judgment", and is now having to prioritise the costs of therapy for D;
ii) The cost of living has risen significantly since the costs order was made which has had an adverse impact on her and her family; this was not foreseen at the time of the order;
i) Should the mother have appealed Francis J's order? Is the mother's current application effectively an appeal against that order?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.