Orders restricting further applications

Restriction on further applications under the Children Act 1989—s 91(14) orders

When the court disposes of any application for an order under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) it may make an order under ChA 1989, s 91(14) ( a s 91(14) order), that no application for an order under that Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without the leave of the court.

An order under ChA 1989, s 91(14) does not stop an application being made to the court but they are a protective filter made by the court, in the interests of children. The effect of a s 91(14) order is to restrict an applicant who would otherwise have an automatic entitlement to apply to the court for an order from being able to do so, without obtaining permission from the court.

A s 91(14) order may be made in relation to both private law and public law proceedings.

See Practice Note: Restriction on further applications under the Children Act 1989—section 91(14)

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

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.

The interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy (DDR v BDR)

Family analysis: This judgment shows the court adopting a highly structured approach to the determination of questions of property law prior to the determination of a financial remedy application against a backdrop of bankruptcy proceedings, procedural and evidential confusion and limited involvement of lawyers until a late stage. It is also a user-friendly reminder of the court's approach to common intention constructive trusts and the quantification of beneficial interests in a sole legal owner case.