[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)

Fecha: 23-May-2025

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published. The anonymity of everyone other than the lawyers must be strictly preserved. All per

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published. The anonymity of everyone other than the lawyers must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

McKendrick J:

Introduction

These proceedings concern a child who is seventeen years old. The Child is not a party to these proceedings. The applicant is the mother. The respondent is the father (who does not exercise parental responsibility for them). The applications before the court are:

the Applicant’s C 100 Form application dated 5 September 2024 for a specific issue order to order the Respondent to: (i) enter the child’s name into the register in the Middle East country of which the Respondent is a national; and (ii) sign an application for a passport of the Middle East country of which the Respondent is a national on behalf of the child.

the Applicant’s deemed application for the order of Bodey J for periodical payments to be varied up because of: (i) the costs of a driver; (ii) security costs; and (iii) the costs of holidays;

the Respondent’s deemed application for the order of Bodey J for periodical payments to be varied down because the child: (i) is a full time boarder ‘and otherwise’; (ii) will take a gap year; and (iii) will attend university;

the Respondent’s application to release a solicitor, who acts as the Respondent’s intermediary, from certain undertakings given to Mr Justice Bodey in 2013.

The Applicant has appeared in person. She has been assisted by a McKenzie friend, who attended with her on both days of the hearing. On the second day she also attended with a ‘mental health supporter’. Given the background and the fact a Form C1A was issued, I raised with the Applicant FPR Practice Direction 3AA and whether she sought any form of participation directions. She did not. At the case management hearing in these proceedings, Harris J granted permission for the Respondent not to attend this hearing. I determined no participation directions were required. I heard evidence from the Applicant who was sworn and gave evidence from the well of the court, to permit her to have her papers around her and the (appropriate) assistance of her McKenzie friend. On the second day I permitted her some reasonable adjustments to move in court and stand because she said she experienced some pain. I made clear she could seek breaks during the hearing and she asked for them when she needed one. She confirmed that she did not need, and had never sought, interpretation. English is not her first language. In respect of the application regarding the undertakings, I directed the Respondent’s legal team to provide the Applicant an ‘easy read’ two page summary to assist her. I also required Mr Glaser to draft a further summary of the law, specifically having in mind any case law which might assist the Applicant. This was shared with her on day two. I am entirely satisfied she has received a fair hearing and has not been disadvantaged by the inequality of arms between the respective teams.

I have determined to dismiss all applications except the application to release the Respondent’s intermediary from his undertakings. I endeavour to briefly set out my reasons below.