Orders restricting further applications

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—26 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the new Pension Schemes Bill and consideration of Hadkinson and unless orders where there is a failure to comply with a legal services payment order. Recent judgments on the interaction between accommodation under the Children Act 1989 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the inherent jurisdiction to facilitate the summary return of a child are considered. Two new flowcharts on applications under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention) and the limited defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention are also set out.

Hadkinson versus unless orders (Ahmad v Faraj)

Family analysis: The court was concerned with the failure of one party, the husband, to comply with a legal services payment order (LSPO) made in favour of another party, the wife, in order to fund her representation on appeals made by the husband and the second respondent (IBB). The husband and IBB appealed a first instance decision in a financial relief matter and the wife secured a LSPO against the husband for representation during the appeal proceedings. The husband did not comply with that order and the wife applied for an unless order or Hadkinson order to be made to enforce the LSPO. The court declined to make an unless order as it was disproportionate to immediately dismiss the husband’s claim. The court did make a Hadkinson order (per Hadkinson v Hadkinson), which was considered more proportionate and the conditions in de Gaffori v de Gaffori for making such an order were satisfied. Anastasia Gilfillan, barrister, and Emily Lennon, pupil, at 1 Hare Court, consider the decision.

Family weekly highlights—19 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Online Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes and the evidence given at the annual session of the Lords Constitution Committee. Recent judgments on the duty to accommodate a child, foreign adoption and child maintenance are considered. A new flowchart on the threshold criteria in public children proceedings is also set out.

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

View Family by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Duration, variation and discharge of special guardianship orders

Duration, variation and discharge of special guardianship ordersDuration of special guardianship ordersA special guardianship order (SGO) will continue until the child attains the age of 18 unless it is discharged sooner by an order of the court.An SGO cannot be made for a specified period in the

Permission to apply for a section 8 order

Permission to apply for a section 8 orderPermission to apply for a section 8 orderUnder the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) certain applicants are entitled to apply for an order under ChA 1989, s 8 (s 8 order) on the basis that they are persons who are usually closely connected with the child, while

What is the procedure to withdraw an application made on Form C100?

What is the procedure to withdraw an application made on Form C100?Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 29.4 provides that any application that relates to the welfare or upbringing of a child or where either of the parties is a protected party may only be withdrawn with the

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a
Duration, variation and discharge of special guardianship orders

Duration, variation and discharge of special guardianship orders

Duration, variation and discharge of special guardianship ordersDuration of special guardianship ordersA special guardianship order (SGO) will continue until the child attains the age of 18 unless it is discharged sooner by an order of the court.An SGO cannot be made for a specified period in the