header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

O v P [2015] EWHC 935 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 154 (Jun)

A child had been made the subject of non-molestation injunctions, which extended to her mother, while she was a ward of court. As she approached her 18th birthday, the mother applied to court for an extension of the injunction to extend indefinitely beyond the conclusion of the wardship proceedings. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that it had jurisdiction to make such an order, although the mother and child lived in Australia, as did the person the order was directed towards. Such an order could be extended beyond the conclusion of the wardship and the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such an order, either under its wardship jurisdiction or under its inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll