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.
(i) Wardship proceedings instituted by M, the grandmother of E, (and M2, M's husband) seeking an order that the child be made a Ward of Court. The Master of the Family Division has already made such an order and the application is for the wardship to be renewed.
(ii) An application by C, who is the mother of E, who seeks enforcement pursuant to Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1986 of an order made on 13�January 2005 in the High Court of Justice Family Division Principal Registry in London by the then President of the Family Division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. Paragraph 1 of that order, which was the subject of this application, read as follows:
That order was a consent order made after negotiations had occurred in the case. I have seen the summons which preceded that Order dated 31 October 2994, and it is clear that in paragraph 1 of the summons no issue of custody was sought but simply an order of contact.
(iii) An application by C for the recognition and enforcement of orders made in Chile on 2 February 2005 and 25 May 2005 when the Chilean Appeal Court issued a decision upholding a first instance order of the Chilean Court requiring E to be returned to her mother in Chile at the end of her school year namely June 2005.
(iv) An application brought by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the child E whereby the child seeks a residence order that she live with M and M2.
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.