Pressland v MacLachlan

[2001] EWCA Civ 44

Case details

Case citations
[2001] EWCA Civ 44
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
22 January 2001
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Family Civil procedure Child contact
Keywords
contact arrangements supervised contact contact centre permission to appeal expedited appeal risk to child
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where a prior family-court assessment required independently supervised contact, a later continuation of contact in a different form may raise an arguable appellate issue if the significance of an outstanding risk to the child requires reconsideration. The live issue is the continuation of the arrangement, rather than a completed temporary variation. Permission to appeal was granted on an expedited basis, with contact stayed except at a contact centre pending the appeal.

Factual background

The appellant challenged a contact arrangement made in the Family Division. HHJ Anwyl had previously concluded that contact could take place only under independent supervision at a specially arranged contact centre. Because the centre was closed over Christmas, Recorder Ball QC altered the arrangements and continued contact between the child and the uncle and aunt until the end of February.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the continuation of that contact was appropriate in light of the possible prosecution of the mother for attempting to murder the child. The Christmas arrangement itself was no longer the live issue.

Held

  1. Permission and interim order. The President granted permission to appeal and ordered utmost expedition. Pending the hearing, contact was stayed except for contact at a contact centre.
  2. Arguable issue. The court considered that it was arguable that the continuation of contact should be reconsidered against the earlier finding requiring independent supervision and the significance of the possible prosecution for attempted murder of the child.
  3. Scope of decision. The court did not determine the merits of the contact dispute. Its ruling concerned permission, expedition and the interim contact arrangements only.
  4. Costs. Costs in the appeal were ordered.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Principal Registry, Family Division: HHJ Anwyl concluded that contact could occur only under independent supervision at a specially arranged contact centre. Recorder Ball QC altered the contact arrangements over Christmas and continued contact with the uncle and aunt until the end of February. No citation for the lower decisions was stated.
  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was expedited, and contact was stayed except at a contact centre pending the hearing.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
permission to appeal granted

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.