M (Children), Re

[2002] EWCA Civ 192

Case details

Case citations
[2002] EWCA Civ 192
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
30 January 2002
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Family Children proceedings Restriction on applications under section 91(14)
Keywords
permission to appeal section 91(14) residence order renewed judicial investigation litigation moratorium children proceedings
Outcome
appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where an order under section 91(14) restricts further applications concerning children, permission to issue a fresh application depends on whether the proposed application demonstrates a need for renewed judicial investigation. A recent determination of the same issue, together with the purpose of providing the children with respite from litigation, may justify refusal of permission. Appellate intervention in that discretionary assessment is reserved for the rarest cases.

Factual background

The father sought permission to appeal against Johnson J’s refusal of permission to issue a further application concerning the residence of the parties’ two children. An earlier order had prohibited both parents from making further applications without permission under section 91(14), following extensive litigation and a recent determination of residence.

The father relied on alleged changes in the mother’s circumstances and alleged harm to one child. The central issue was whether his application demonstrated a need for renewed judicial investigation.

Held

  1. Application dismissed and permission to appeal refused.
  2. The purpose of the section 91(14) order was to give the children respite from continuing litigation. The application sought to reopen the central issue of residence only seven months after it had been determined.
  3. Following Re A (Application for Leave) [1998] 1 FLR 1, the relevant question was whether the application demonstrated any need for renewed judicial investigation. Johnson J had considered both the written material and the oral submissions and concluded that it did not.
  4. That conclusion was discretionary. The Court of Appeal would intervene only in the rarest circumstances. The allegations relied on by the father did not give the proposed appeal any realistic prospect of success, and the application was described as hopeless.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the father’s application and refused permission to appeal.
  • Family Division: Johnson J refused permission on 5 November 2001 to issue a further application after an earlier section 91(14) restriction.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.