Munby J considered the the duty of full and frank disclosure which exists on those who seek to use a without notice procedure within Children proceedings. Generally, when granting ex parte injunctive relief in the Family Division, the court will require the applicant, and, where appropriate, the applicant’s solicitor, to give a series of undertakings, (a) where proceedings had not yet been issued, to issue and serve proceedings on the respondent, either by some specified time or as soon as practicable; (b) where the application had been made otherwise than on sworn notice, to cause to be sworn, filed and served on the respondents as soon as practicable an affidavit substantially in terms of the draft affidavits produced to the court or, as the case might be, confirming the substance of what was said to the court; (c) to serve on the respondents, as soon as practicable, notice of the proceedings and a sealed copy of the order, copies of the affidavits, any exhibits and notice of return date.
He said: ‘The burden on those who apply for ex parte relief is, as indicated in Memory Corpn plc v Sidhu (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 1443, a heavy one. And, as the same case shows, the duty of full and frank disclosure is not confined to the material facts: it extends to all relevant matters, whether matters of fact or of law. As Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said in In re M and N (Minors) (Wardship: Publication of Information) [1990] Fam 211, 229, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that those who seek ex parte injunctions are under an obligation to make the fullest and most candid disclosure of all relevant circumstances known to them.’
Judges:
Munby J
Citations:
[2001] 1 FLR 308, [2001] 1 WLR 211, [2001] 1 All ER 362
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Confirmed – Re W (ex-parte orders) FD 2000
The circumstances in which ex parte relief is obtained in the Family Division are likely to vary very widely. Moreover, relief is often granted by the Division in circumstances which are very much removed from those in which ex parte relief will be . .
Cited by:
Cited – In re W (Children) FD 25-Jul-2014
. .
Cited – Re W (A Child) (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) CA 16-Oct-2013
Sir James Munby discussed the lamentable failure by a local authority to comply with an order of the court: ‘That the parents and their representatives should have been put in this position is quite deplorable. It is, unhappily, symptomatic of a . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v M and Others FD 27-Mar-2015
The authority sought orders to prevent the respondent children travelling to countries controlled by the ISIS groups. The parents being unlikely to be effective to restrain them, the court had made them wards of court.
Held: ‘the status of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.535416
