![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> HM (An Adult), Re [2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam) (09 August 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2010/2107.html Cite as: [2011] Fam Law 31, [2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 1394 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
(In Private)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(sitting as a Judge of the Family Division)
____________________
In the Matter of HM (An Adult) PM |
Claimant |
|
- and - | ||
(1) KH (2) HM (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) - and - THE STATES OF GUERNSEY |
Defendants Interested Party |
____________________
The First Defendant (mother) in person
Ms Lisa Giovannetti (instructed by Bindmans) for the Second Defendant
Mr Jason Hill (instructed by the Attorney General's Office, States of Guernsey) for the Interested Party
Hearing date: 20 July 2010
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Munby :
i) It gave directions in relation to the committal application which the Official Solicitor informed me he proposed to make against PM. Included amongst them was a direction that the committal application was not to be listed before any of the six judges of the Family Division who have previously dealt with this litigation.
ii) It gave directions in relation to the costs applications being made against PM both by the Official Solicitor and by the States of Guernsey.
iii) It directed the Official Solicitor's solicitors to provide an account (and supporting documentation) in respect of the funds previously held by DP.
iv) It recited the disclosure already made to PM by the Official Solicitor's solicitors and provided that if PM sought to assert that any further documents ought to be disclosed he should apply on notice.
v) Finally, it gave directions in relation to any application by PM in respect of costs or in respect of the sums expended from the funds previously held by DP.
"Please ensure that this email is put before the Court at (and /or before) the proposed hearing on 20th July 2010 and note the following, my formal submissions:-
I HEREBY FORMALLY APPLY FOR AN ORDER RELEASING THE [X] FUNDS TO ME SO THAT I AM ABLE TO FINANCE LITIGATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
1 Judge Munby should not sit in this or any other matter to do with me and/or [HM].
2 I cannot attend court to make full submissions as I have recently been made aware that I am liable to summary arrest/incarceration if I land in any port in the United Kingdom.
3 There are numerous statements/orders/judgments by judge Munby setting out the reasons why he himself considers that he should no longer sit in these matters for example:-
"On 21 April 2010 I was sent copies of certain emailed correspondence between PM's solicitors and the Official Solicitor's solicitors, including a letter from PM's solicitors to the Official Solicitor's solicitors dated 19 April 2010 which, so far as material for present purposes, said:
"my instructions are limited only to considering what action if any my client should take against Justice Mumby [sic]. I have no instructions in the general family proceedings."
and Judge Munby therefore issued a Judgment to the effect that:-
"Given the nature of his solicitor's instructions, it is plainly not appropriate for me to deal with the question of whether blocked funds should be released to PM (or his solicitors)."
4 Bindmans are again requested to provide me with copy invoices in respect of the Israeli Lawyer's advice and translations which I have previously (on more than one occasion) requested in writing and which Bindmans refuse to provide, despite making a claim for these fees within their costs application on behalf of the Official Solicitor.
5 Bindmans are again requested to provide me with a copy of their notes of the Hearings on the 17th April and 30th April 2010 which I have requested in writing and which Bindmans refuse to provide, as I was not present at these Hearings.
6 Guernsey is not (and has always refused to be) a party to the proceedings and is most certainly not 'the third defendant'' as their claim suggests. Any claim Guernsey might wish to make should be the subject of separate proceedings and should not in any event include claims for quantities of wines, cigarettes and general entertainment consumed by [HM]'s mother.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I am well aware that I am the only party required to comply with (unsealed) orders and that all other parties can (and regularly do) disobey (sealed) Orders. This bias is intolerable and is in breach of my Article 6 Rights."
"[1] My second judgment in this matter was sent to the parties in draft on 20 April 2010 with an indication that it would be handed down on 30 April 2010: Re HM (Adult), PM v KH and anor (States of Guernsey, Interested Party) (No 2) [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam).
[2] In paragraphs [50]-[51] of that judgment I explained why the general freezing order which I had last extended on 16 March 2010, and which was due to expire on 14 April 2010, was not being extended and why, in its place, I had on 14 April 2010 made a freezing order limited in scope to the funds held by X.
[3] In paragraph [52] I referred to emails PM had sent me on 19 and 20 April 2010 asking for, as I put it in my judgment, "immediate payment of the sum of £15,000 to solicitors." I explained why I was not prepared to make the order he sought. I indicated that he could of course make a further application for such an order.
[4] When I wrote that, and when I sent the draft judgment to the parties on 20 April 2010, I had assumed that the solicitors were being instructed by PM in relation to these proceedings.
[5] On 21 April 2010, the day after I had sent out the draft, I was sent copies of certain emailed correspondence between PM's solicitors and the Official Solicitor's solicitors, including a letter from PM's solicitors to the Official Solicitor's solicitors dated 19 April 2010 which, so far as material for present purposes, said:
"my instructions are limited only to considering what action if any my client should take against Justice Mumby [sic]. I have no instructions in the general family proceedings."
[6] Given the nature of his solicitor's instructions, it is plainly not appropriate for me to deal with the question of whether blocked funds should be released to PM (or his solicitors) as sought in his emails to me of 19 and 20 April 2010. Accordingly, any application of the kind referred to in paragraph [3] above which PM may wish to pursue will have to be made to another judge."
So far as the Official Solicitor is aware, no such application has been made. Ms Giovannetti submits, and I agree, that this does not provide any principled basis for any objection to my dealing with the matters currently before me. Indeed, as she points out, I am best placed to do so, as the judge who has dealt with the proceedings to which the costs now in issue relate.
"AND UPON the Court considering that as at the date of this order it is neither necessary nor in HM's best interests to restrict or regulate contact between HM and KH."
And, as she says, that remains the position. She summarises the Official Solicitor's appraisal as follows:
i) It is clear from the evidence the court has considered, including the various expert reports, that KH's conduct has never undermined the stability of any of HM's placements, or posed a threat to HM's welfare.
ii) To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that KH has been able to establish a good working relationship with HM's professional carers. When she has had concerns or suggestions about HM's care, she has been able to raise them in a constructive manner.
iii) She has also shown a high degree of insight into HM's evolving needs as she has grown from a child into a young adult.
iv) Indeed, KH's conduct throughout this litigation has demonstrated her ability to put HM's needs and interests before her own.
"It is no exaggeration to say that I am physically and emotionally exhausted, the experience in Israel was traumatising and had it not been for [JM]'s support, I believe I would have caved under the pressure and been forced to accept that there was nothing else I could do to protect [HM] and return home without her. We are all left struggling to gain some sense of equilibrium."