Key Facts
- •Father has a history of frequent litigation (10 cases on Bailii).
- •Father made 8 formal applications in current proceedings and sent numerous lengthy emails to the court.
- •Father applied for leave to appeal three case management orders, all dismissed as without merit.
- •Father has an autism diagnosis, impacting case management and hearing procedures.
- •Children (aged 8-10) are highly intelligent, two diagnosed with autism, one awaiting ADHD assessment.
- •Children are significantly affected by the ongoing litigation.
- •Father's litigation conduct is deemed 'lawfare' by the judge.
- •Father's position on shared care is considered unreasonable.
Legal Principles
Section 91(14) orders restrict further applications to court; welfare of the child is paramount.
Children Act 1989, s91(14); Re P (2000); Re A (A CHILD) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749
Guidelines for s91(14) orders consider factors like repeated unreasonable applications, risk of harm to child or other individual, proportionality of restriction, and material change of circumstances.
Re P (2000); Re A (A CHILD) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749
Court can make s91(14) order of its own motion; can consider conduct even without excessive applications; applications for leave should be heard on notice.
Children Act 1989, s91(14), s91A; Re S (CA 1989, s91(14))
In conflict between parent's rights and child's welfare, child's welfare is prioritized.
Articles 6 and 8 ECHR (implied)
Outcomes
S91(14) order made restricting father from making further applications without leave until each child reaches 16.
Father's litigation conduct causes harm to children; order is necessary and proportionate to protect children's welfare.