“It is what the case does not look at – but perhaps should have done? – is what this note considers: first, the question of proportionality; and, secondly, at release of information to help us ‘make sense’ of the case”
Attempts to ‘conflict out’ a party to family proceedings
In ZS -v- FS (Application to Prevent Solicitor Acting)  EWHC 2660 (Fam) (24 October 2017) Williams J allowed a rich (I assume) Russian to spend two days arguing whether or not his wife (who may of not be FS: see later) should be allowed to use Ray Tooth (RT) whom she had chosen to instruct. In the meantime the ‘representative’ (OE) of the husband (say, ZS) said he had been to see RT, who could not remember the meeting. The judge assumed this was an attempt by ZS to ‘conflict out’ (a new verb?) FS so that she could not use Tooth to act for her. ZS’s application was unsuccessful.
The judge found OE (why ever was his case kept anonymous) to be ‘blasé about … accuracy in matters evidential’ (as the judge put it at ). Others might have…
View original post 1,479 more words