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.
The Appellant appeared in person The Respondent did not appear and was not represented Hearing date: 5 September 2023 ____________________
i) The judge was in error in making a final Child Arrangements Order at a Dispute Resolution Hearing when the applicant was clearly not consenting to a final order for no direct contact being made;
ii) In circumstances where the applicant did not agree to a 'no direct contact' order and challenged the CAFCASS report, the hearing was conducted in breach of his right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, Art6.
iii) The imposition of an order under the Children Act 1989, s. 91(14), preventing further applications, was wrong in circumstances where none of the procedural requirements necessary to establish a fair process with respect to a litigant in person were followed (see Re C [2009] 2 FLR 1461 ) and the judge gave no judgment in support of making the 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.