W (children), Re

A restriction under section 91(14) should be imposed only after the parties have had a fair opportunity to address the issue and the court has considered the relevant authorities. The order should be justified by reasons and appropriately limited. Where parents require assistance in implementing residence or contact arrangements, particularly during a review period, the court should generally adopt a hands-on approach that preserves access to judicial assistance.

The parents had three children and were involved in continuing residence and contact proceedings in the Brighton County Court. The county court varied a shared residence and contact arrangement, directed a review, and ordered under section 91(14) that neither parent could make further application concerning residence or contact without the court’s permission, save for clarification of the order.

The father appealed in person. Permission was granted only on the challenge to the section 91(14) restriction, because it appeared to have been made without prior notice or argument, without adequate reasons, and without proper reference to the relevant authorities. The central issue was whether that restriction was appropriate in the circumstances.

1. Appeal allowed. Paragraph 15 of the county court order was set aside. The matter was directed to be reviewed urgently in the Brighton County Court before 31 May 2006, preferably by HHJ Hayward, with a one-hour time estimate, or by another judge if he was unavailable.
2. A section 91(14) restriction was inappropriate in this case. The judge had not explained why it was being made, had apparently made it without discussion or giving the parties an opportunity to address it, and had not referred to the relevant authorities, including Re P. The restriction was also potentially prejudicial to the mother because it could prevent her from returning to court if the order were being exploited.
3. In proceedings involving substantial contact with both parents, a shared residence order with practical difficulties, and a need for further judicial intervention, the judge should adopt a hands-on rather than a hands-off approach. The court should remain accessible to help implement the order and resolve practical difficulties.
4. There was no reason for HHJ Hayward to recuse himself merely because the Court of Appeal reversed one aspect of the order. His familiarity with the case made him appropriate to conduct the review, subject to availability. The review previously listed for 15 minutes was manifestly inadequate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from Brighton County Court allowed. Paragraph 15 of the order was set aside and an urgent one-hour review was directed before 31 May 2006.
• Brighton County Court: HHJ Hayward made residence and contact orders, including a section 91(14) restriction preventing further applications without permission. The restriction was challenged on appeal.