Gary Yan reports on the exceptional use of s 91(14) prohibition
Given that a s 91(14) order represents a substantial interference with an individual’s right of unrestricted access to the court, in the leading case of Re P (A Minor) (Residence Order: Child’s Welfare) [2000] Fam 15, [1999] 3 All ER 734 Lady Justice Butler-Sloss (as she then was) warned that this discretionary power is to be used “with great care and sparingly”, and as the “exception and not the rule”. Her ladyship gave very useful guidance on the application of such a restriction, and considered that for such an order to be made, the court would need to be satisfied that:
(i) the facts of the case went beyond any commonly encountered need for a time to settle to a regime ordered by the court and the common situation where there was animosity between the adults in dispute; and
(ii) there was a serious risk of subjecting the child or the primary carers to “unacceptable strain”, if the restriction was not imposed.
Butler-Sloss LJ also held that such a restriction should only be imposed by
