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)������� An application dated 2 May 2003 by T for a joint residency order in respect of both children.� In the event this was the only application that was processed to its full conclusion before me.
(ii)������ An application by T "to remove the interim order made by Judge Markey that permits C to participate in contact only when he wishes to do so".� Upon perusal of the papers the only document to that effect was a direction made by Judge Markey on 28 January 2005 which read:
(iv)����� The third application was by S for an order varying the contact order of 11 January 2002 to remove overnight contact on Wednesday of each week in respect of C and B.� This is also not being proceeded with on the basis that the precise periods of contact have been agreed.� I therefore give leave for that application to be withdrawn.
(vi)����� There was an application by the father that the court make an order pursuant to Article 179(14) to prevent further applications being brought before the court without the leave of the court.� Both parties agreed that they would be bound by such an order and I will deal with that later in this judgment.
����������� In effect the one matter to be determined by me, apart from the application under Article 179(14) of the 1995 Order was the issue as to whether �a shared residence was now appropriate.
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.