[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 >> Olaribiro v Shoyemi [2014] EWHC 3365 (Fam) (09 October 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3365.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 3365 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice
		9th October 2014

THE PRESIDENT:

1. I have before me an application by the respondent, Miss Shoyemi, seeking the discharge of a location order and accompanying directions made by His Honour Sir Gavyn Arthur (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) on 29 August 2014.
2. In accordance with the usual practice a copy of the location order was made available to the solicitors acting for the applicant, T V Edwards LLP. The order has prominently displayed at the top of it the following words:

"Note that service of this order upon the respondent and any other person is to be effected only by the Tipstaff. The copy provided to the applicant must not be used for service upon any person."

I understand from the Tipstaff that, in accordance with the usual practice, that information was repeated in the covering letter by which the order was sent to the solicitors.

3. Despite, and indeed in the teeth of that direction, the solicitors, on the same day, wrote to Miss Shoyemi a letter in the following terms:

"Please find attached a copy of the location order made at court on 29 August 2014, for your information."

Indeed, there was attached to that letter, which Miss Shoyemi has produced to me this morning, a copy of the location order.

4. Very helpfully, the Assistant Tipstaff has attended before me this morning. She confirms that the location order has never been served upon Miss Shoyemi. That was at the explicit request of the solicitors, who made clear to the Tipstaff that they did not wish the location order to be served until such time as they had had the opportunity of serving some disclosure orders. They were apparently uneasy at the prospect of Miss Shoyemi being tipped off. Be that as it may, today is 9 October 2014. So this location order, at the explicit request of the solicitors, has not been served despite having been made some six weeks ago.
5. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the proper course to adopt is for me to discharge the location order and any other orders made by Sir Gavyn Arthur on 29 August 2014 which have not yet been served. If the applicant or his solicitors seek further relief from the court, they can make a fresh application.
6. I make clear that, understandably, because Miss Shoyemi comes before me as a litigant in person, she has emphasised factual matters to do with the background of the case which, as she argues, demonstrate the inappropriateness of the relief sought by the applicant. As to that, I can see the force of what she says. She has very helpfully provided me with copies of the CAFCASS report dated 18 December 2012, and also copies of school reports dated respectively 19 August and 16 December 2013. Those do indeed, taken at face value, raise a question as to the appropriateness of the relief sought by the applicant. But the basis upon which I propose to proceed is the narrow one which I have already indicated: that in the circumstances this location order should be set aside for the reasons I have given.
7. I will make an order in those terms. I invite the Associate to prepare the appropriate order which I will then approve. I direct that a transcript of the judgment I have just given be prepared as a matter of urgency at public expense, a copy placed on the court file and a copy supplied by the court to Miss Shoyemi so that if there is any further application made against her she will be in a position to produce to the court on a future occasion my judgment setting out why it is that the location order was set aside.