ZA v YB (Appeal: Extending s91(14) Order: Unfair Procedure)

A court considering a further Children Act 1989 section 91(14) order must ensure procedural fairness. The affected party must know that such an order is under consideration, understand its effect, know the evidential basis, and have a proper opportunity to make representations, including about its duration. These requirements apply with particular force to an unrepresented litigant. An order made without those safeguards may be unjust for serious procedural irregularity on appeal, even where the court had jurisdiction to make it and the underlying concerns are substantial.

The father appealed against a Family Court order extending a section 91(14) restriction for three years. The extension was made when the court refused permission for a further section 8 application. The father had made representations about permission to issue that application, but had not been told that a further section 91(14) order was being considered and had no opportunity to address the proposed order or its duration.

The original sealed order omitted the section 91(14) extension. The Family Court later corrected the omission under the slip rule. The appeal concerned whether the order was procedurally unjust and whether the appellate court should remit the matter.

1. Appeal allowed. The further section 91(14) order was set aside because it had been made without notice to the father, who was a litigant in person, and without giving him an opportunity to make representations. The failure to state his right to apply to set aside, vary or stay the order was a further procedural irregularity.
2. The court had power in principle to make the order. Refusing permission to issue a section 8 application disposed of an application for an order under the Children Act 1989, and section 91A(5)(b) permitted the court to act of its own initiative. The defect lay in the procedure adopted, not in the existence of the power.
3. For a significant section 91(14) order, the procedural safeguards identified in Re T (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) (s91(14) Ch A 1989) and Re C (Litigant in Person: Section 91(14) Order) were applicable whether or not the affected party was represented. The father’s history of abusive conduct did not displace his entitlement to natural justice.
4. The case was remitted to a Circuit Judge at the Family Court at Sussex–Brighton other than HHJ Ahmed. Under FPR r30(11)(1), the appeal court had the powers of the lower court and made a temporary section 91(14) order until 30 November 2025. The new judge was to reconsider the matter afresh and was not bound by that temporary order.
5. The amendment of the original order under FPR r29.16(1) was valid because the omission was accidental and the correction reflected the order already intended, rather than a second thought.

• Family Court at Sussex–Brighton: On 3 January 2025, refused permission for the father to issue a section 8 application and extended the existing section 91(14) order until 17 March 2028.
• High Court (Family Division): Appeal allowed. The extension was set aside for serious procedural irregularity and the question of any further order was remitted to a different Circuit Judge.