Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the powers of the family court, specifically regarding section 31E(1)(a) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984).
- •Care proceedings involving two brothers, where the mother applied for an injunction against the father to gain control of the children's Apple IDs.
- •The Circuit Judge refused the injunction, believing she lacked the jurisdiction to make such an order.
- •The Guardian appealed the decision.
Legal Principles
Section 31E(1)(a) MFPA 1984 grants the family court the power to make any order that the High Court could make if the proceedings were in the High Court.
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
The family court has wide and flexible powers to make incidental and supplemental orders to give effect to its substantive decisions, even utilizing the inherent powers of the High Court.
Court of Appeal judgment
The family court is a single, unified court with extensive jurisdiction, and family business should be conducted within it unless specific reasons dictate otherwise.
Court of Appeal judgment
There is parity among judges and magistrates of the family court regarding the orders that can be made, subject to limitations on remedies in Schedule 2 of the Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014.
Court of Appeal judgment
Orders concerning parental responsibility, even those involving third parties like Apple, can fall under the family court's jurisdiction if they are incidental to its substantive decisions (e.g., care orders).
Court of Appeal judgment
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal found the Circuit Judge incorrectly interpreted section 31E(1)(a) MFPA 1984 and wrongly concluded she lacked jurisdiction. The injunction was considered an incidental order to support existing care orders and well within the family court's power.
Matter remitted to the judge.
The case was sent back to the original judge to reconsider the mother's application for the injunction, considering updated information.