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.
                       This is the judgment of the court.
                       To assist the parties to follow the main lines of the court's reasoning, the text is divided into six sections, as set out in the table of contents above.� The table is hyperlinked to aid swift navigation.
                       This is a judgment on costs in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
                       The applicant in the main proceedings is C ("M") and is represented in the costs application by Mr Infield of counsel. She is the mother of the two subject children. They are X {} and his sister Z {}. The respondent in the main proceedings is S ("F"), represented by Ms Venters KC. He is the children's father. The court is grateful to counsel for their submissions.
"4. The ambition in May 2024 was to make final orders and put these complicated and prolonged proceedings to an end. The intention had been to provide one consolidated judgment in this case at the conclusion of all proceedings including F's application for costs, given the profusion of previous�� judgments.� The court has been concerned about the depth and extent of the impact on the children, which can be gleaned from the fact that proceedings concerning these children were first issued when both of them were below the age of 3.� X is now well over 15 years old.�
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.