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.
Charlotte Proudman (instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP) for the Appellant The Respondent in person Hearing date: 17 October 2025 ____________________
iii) A s91(14) restriction preventing either party from applying for specified child arrangements orders for a period of 2 years.
vi) Although not specified in the order, the judge also refused a continuation of a Family Law Act order previously made against F.
iii) The decision to make no order as to costs rather than to make an order in M's favour (paragraph 19 of the order).
"It is, of course, not enough for the wife to establish that this court might, or would, have made a different order. We are here concerned with a judicial discretion, and it is of the essence of such a discretion that on the same evidence two different minds might reach widely different decisions without either being appealable. It is only where the decision exceeds the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible, and is, in fact, plainly wrong, that an appellate body is entitled to interfere."
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.