Evidence and procedure

Evidence in private law children proceedings

There are three forms of evidence:

  1. oral evidence by witnesses—note that the court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or by other means

  2. documentary evidence, such as statements, reports, photographs and case records

  3. real evidence, such as a site visit or marks on a person’s body

Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 22 the court is given wide powers to control the way in which evidence is given. It may give directions as to:

  1. the issues on which it requires evidence

  2. the nature of the evidence that it requires to decide those issues, and

  3. the way in which the evidence is placed before it

It may exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

A child’s unsworn evidence is admissible if they understand the duty to tell the truth and they have adequate understanding.

The general rule is that all competent witnesses can be compelled to give evidence. Refusal to be sworn, or refusal to answer questions, is contempt of court. The court has a residual

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents