Family Law Hub

H v L & R [2006] EWHC 3099 (Fam)

Judgment, published: 31/12/2006

Items referring to this

  • Fact finding hearing to consider Mother's allegations against Father in order to inform future welfare decisions about their son. At the end of the judgment Mr Justice Hayden expresses his concern that a Judge in the Family Court can still not prevent a victim being cross examined by an alleged perpetrator. Judgment, 23/05/2017, free
  • A fact finding hearing in this contact case had to take place, but although the mother had benefit of legal aid the father did not. The case was exceptional in that the mother had made serious allegations, including rape, against the father and the judge explained the difficulties of a family judge conducting questioning of the complainant in a case where there were sexual allegations. The judge sent this judgment to the Legal Aid Board and invited them to reconsider the father's application for legal aid as a matter of urgency - the application was reconsidered but again refused. Judgment, 17/03/2014, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision in which no order for contact was made with respect to the eldest child, and only limited provision was made for indirect contact to the youngest child. The appeal was allowed but the judge rules that it was contrary to the welfare interests of either of the children to contemplate a re-hearing. Judgment, 06/02/2018, free
  • This was a case in which the judge did not feel it was appropriate for him to cross-examine the child (who had made allegations against her step father) in a situation where the father was not represented or eligible for legal aid. The judge said instead that the court should arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to cross-examine the child on behalf of the father and that the cost of this should be met by HMCTS. The Lord Chancellor appealed and the appeal was allowed, the court saying that in the present case, which was fairly straightforward, the judge should probably have decided to conduct the questioning himself. The nature of this case was such that there were options available to the judge which would have ensured a fair hearing and vindicated the article 6 and 8 rights of the father and the other children involved. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • In brief: Here the father (“F”) was a litigant in person (legal aid having been refused). The mother (“M”) alleged that he had deliberately stranded her in Pakistan, separating her from her children and had subjected her to coercive, controlling behaviour as well as physical and verbal abuse. At the fact-finding hearing in wardship proceedings, the judge directed the children’s guardian, who was legally represented, to cross-examine both parents in order to prevent F from cross-examining M. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Judgment from the President concerning the representation for LiP's and possible infringement of their article 6 and 8 rights if such representation is not publicly funded. The President said that 'there may be circumstances in which the court can properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by HMCTS. I emphasise that (the provision of interpreters and translators apart) this is an order of last resort. No order of this sort should be made except by or having first consulted a High Court Judge or a Designated Family Judge.' Judgment, 06/08/2014, free

Published: 31/12/2006

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