B (Children), Re

A court may permit a parent to move address after a protected address has been disclosed, provided the new address is disclosed in advance to the court and the other party’s solicitors. The other parent’s undertakings may not adequately address the moving parent’s concerns. A solicitor’s mistaken disclosure does not, without more, make the resulting moving costs an essential consequence for which the solicitors must pay. The decision to move remains essentially the parent’s own decision.

The mother and father were involved in child abduction and custody proceedings. An order made on 8 June 2000 permitted the mother not to disclose her address to the father, provided that it was disclosed to the court and the father’s solicitors. The solicitors were prohibited from disclosing it further without the court’s permission.

The address was subsequently disclosed. The mother sought permission to move, subject to prior disclosure of the new address to the court and her solicitors, and sought an order requiring the solicitors to pay the costs of the move.

Lady Justice Hale granted permission for the mother to move, subject to the address being disclosed to the court and the father’s solicitors before the move. She refused the application for the solicitors to pay the moving costs.

1. The court did not need to determine whether the mother’s concerns were objectively justified. The prior protective order had been breached, and the mother felt that she had to move. The father would not be further prejudiced by the move if the new address was disclosed in advance to the court and his solicitors.
2. The father’s willingness to give undertakings did not necessarily address the mother’s concerns. The court therefore granted permission on the proposed disclosure condition.
3. The solicitors’ disclosure was a mistake which should not have occurred. Nevertheless, the decision whether to move remained essentially the mother’s decision. The move could not be treated as so essential a consequence of the disclosure that the solicitors should bear its costs.
4. The operative order was accordingly that permission to move was granted on condition of prior disclosure, while the application for payment of the moving costs was refused.

The judgment records an order made on 8 June 2000 but does not identify a lower-court decision or an appellate route.