Family Law Hub

W (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196

Judgment, published: 31/12/2011

Items referring to this

  • Another contempt of court case where the F had been committed to prison on several occasions for repeatedly failing to disclose the whereabouts of his daughter. The issue here was whether a further prison sentence would run the risk of being classed as excessive punishment. The court imposed three further concurrent terms of six months’ imprisonment each, to be served consecutively. Judgment, 04/10/2013, free
  • Application by Mother to commit Father to a further prison term for failing to comply with orders either to cause the return of their daughter from Egypt to England or to reveal her whereabouts. The judge ruled that it would not be proportionate or justifiable, nor, therefore, lawful to commit the Father to a yet further term of imprisonment. Judgment, 23/12/2013, free
  • Judgment in long running Hague Convention case concerning whether one of the children involved, now 16, should be a party to the mother's committal proceedings resulting from alleged failure to return the children to Spain. Judgment, 31/03/2014, free
  • Appeal against a custodial sentence for contempt of court. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/07/2018, free
  • Application by a father for the discharge of long-running wardship proceedings concerning his daughter. The father had been committed to prison on several occasions for not complying with court orders to reveal whereabouts in Egypt his daughter resided and to allow contact with the mother. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 17/01/2017, free
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Judgment, 22/08/2013, free
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Case note, 27/09/2013, members only

Published: 31/12/2011

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item