Re SW (No 2) (2017) EWCOP 30: Difference between revisions

(Created page with ""This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
"This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in my judgment, totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 is equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the District Judge's order striking out the original application remains in place."
"This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in my judgment, totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 is equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the District Judge's order striking out the original application remains in place."
==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|Re SW (2017) EWCOP 7}}


==External link==
==External link==

Revision as of 22:30, 28 March 2018

"This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in my judgment, totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 is equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the District Judge's order striking out the original application remains in place."

Related judgments

External link

BAILII