Striking out and civil restraint orders

Striking out a statement of case

Under the court's case management powers it may strike out a statement of case. Striking out a statement of case means that the court has ordered written material to be deleted so that it may no longer be relied on.

A statement of case for these purposes is defined as the whole (or part of an) application form or answer.

In order to strike out a statement of case a court would need to find that:

•
the statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for making a claim
•
the statement of case was likely to obstruct the court’s just disposal of the proceedings
•
the statement of case was an abuse of process
•
the defendant had failed

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Separate representation of children following final Hague Convention return decision (Re A and B (Separate Representation))

Family analysis: This case involved an application by the children (brothers, aged 12 (A) and 10 (B)) to be represented separately from their Cafcass guardian. After the making of a final return decision and the Court of Appeal’s refusal in respect of their mother’s application for permission to appeal that decision, the solicitor instructed directly by the children sought the High Court’s permission for separate representation and set aside of the final return decision. The children already had party status due to the parallel asylum proceedings. The application for A to be separately represented was refused, despite his solicitor (a ‘most experienced professional’) having assessed him as having sufficient understanding (per Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, r 16.29,) to give instructions on his own behalf. B did not yet possess such an understanding and the fact that his older brother did was immaterial. The proposed set aside application was held to be unarguable and to have no prospect of success. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, provided helpful guidance for practitioners on separate representation applications, particularly where the relevant child’s views have been compromised by a parent’s influence. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

Family weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Family considers the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy and the role of the financial dispute resolution hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Four new flowcharts setting out the steps to be taken in applications for financial provision after overseas divorce or dissolution and applications for pension sharing orders are set out, together with details of a new webinar on AI and family law.

Exceptional reasons required to bypass FDRs (GH v GH)

Family analysis: In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel confirmed the importance of the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) and that bypassing this hearing to go from first appointment to final hearing is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This applies even where financial positions are not fully crystallised at the time of the FDR.

Family weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes, the President of the Family Division’s address to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists and the Family Justice Council’s 17th annual debate. Judgments in relation to parental orders, charging orders and overseas adoption are considered. Details of a new toolkit on Scottish family law are set out.