BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> B (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 577 (11 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/577.html
Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 577

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 577

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD ABDUCTION
AND CUSTODY ACT 1985
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1981

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Wednesday, 11th April 2001

B e f o r e :

LADY JUSTICE HALE
____________________

RE: "B" (Children)

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Miss D Taylor (instructed by Messrs Charles Russell, London EC4) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Mother.
Mr J Turner QC (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Napley, EC1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. LADY JUSTICE HALE: There was an order made as long ago as 8th June 2000 allowing the mother not to disclose her address to the father as long as it was disclosed to the court and to the father's solicitors, and ordering that the father's solicitors should not disclose the address to the father or to any other person without the permission of the court.
  2. It is not for me to go into whether or not there were good reasons for that order, but the fact of the matter is that the address has been disclosed. The mother therefore feels, rightly or wrongly, that she must move. The difficulty there is in this case is that the father may offer all the undertakings that he pleases. That will not necessarily address the mother's concerns. The father is not any further prejudiced by her moving, provided that the address is disclosed to the court and to her solicitors in advance of the move. So in those circumstances, without expressing any view as to whether the mother's concerns are justified or not on this particular occasion, I would give her permission on that condition.
  3. In relation to the costs occasioned by the move, it does seem to me that, although it was a mistake by the solicitors that should not have been made, it is basically a matter for the mother whether she decides that she has to move, and it cannot be regarded as so essential a consequence of the disclosure as to justify the solicitors having to pay the costs.
  4. Order: mother's application for permission to move address granted, but application that solicitors pay the costs of such move refused.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/577.html