Moore Barlow acted on a Pro Bono basis for the father in the matter of Mahmoud v Glanville & Anor in the High Court Family Division before Mr Justice MacDonald. The proceedings concerned the welfare of a child, Adam, which became the subject of long and complex litigation between his parents. Two significant judgements were made by Mr Justice MacDonald; one in relation to Adam’s long-term care and child arrangements, the other involving a substantial cost order being made against the mother, including a Pro Bono costs order.
Read the full judgments here:
Mahmoud v Glanville & Anor [2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam) (08 May 2025) – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/1064.html
Mahmoud v Glanville & Anor (No 2)(Pro Bono Costs Order) [2025] EWHC 2395 (Fam) (26 August 2025) – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/2395.html
Background to the case
Serious safeguarding concerns were raised in respect Adam, following numerous breaches of court orders by the mother, including multiple international and domestic abductions of Adam from his father’s care. In June 2024, the mother and two male associates forcibly removed Adam from his father’s care outside of his school and proceeded to conceal him from his father and authorities for a period of months. This resulted in extensive litigation, police involvement and press coverage in an effort to locate Adam. Thankfully, Adam was located in February 2025 and instantly returned to his father’s care.
Previous litigation in this matter involved compelling expert evidence from a clinical psychiatrist and Adam’s Guardian who both found that Adam had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother’s actions and felt there was a high risk of further abduction. Therefore, Adam was to remain in the sole care of his father. Throughout the litigation, a s91(14) barring order was made against the mother, preventing her from making further applications to the court in respect of Adam without prior permission of the court, and a non-molestation order was also made.
The applications and issues before the court in this instance included:
- Permission for the mother to apply for a child arrangements order;
- An application by the mother for the discharge of the non-molestation order and an application by the father for the continuation/extension of the same;
- Restriction of the mother’s parental responsibility for Adam;
- Indirect contact arrangements between Adam and his mother;
- Return of the mother’s passports.
What the law says
s.91(14) Barring Order:
- Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 prevents a person from making further applications in respect of a child to the court without the courts prior permission. The legal test for the court to consider in relation to the mother’s application for permission to apply for a child arrangements order, was set out in Re S (Permission to Seek Relief) [2006] EWCA Civ 1190. The applicant must demonstrate a need for renewed judicial intervention or an arguable case.
Restriction of parental responsibility (PR):
- Restriction on a parent’s PR can be granted through a combination of prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders. Whilst it is often considered quite hard to successfully limit a parent’s PR, the court in Re A (Parental Responsibility) [2023] EWCA Civ 689 and Re T-D [2024] EWCA Civ 793 confirmed that such restrictive orders can be made where a parent’s conduct poses a risk to the child and their welfare.
Pro Bono cost order:
- s.194 Legal Services Act 2007 allows the provision of Pro Bono cost orders, with the award being payable to the Access to Justice Foundation. The judge in Manolete Partners v White [2024] EWCA Civ 1558 confirmed that whilst Pro Bono cost orders are not conventional, they serve the dual purpose of making litigation fair whilst also funding future access to justice for those in need.
Outcome of the case
Mr Justice MacDonald dismissed the mother’s application for permission to apply for a child arrangements order on the basis that she had failed to show a change in the circumstances or address the conduct that resulted in the original s91(14) barring order. She continued to deny any wrongdoing, make unfounded allegations against the father and the judiciary, and her application had no merit. The s91(14) barring order and non-molestation order were extended until July 2029.
Strict limitations were also placed on the mother’s PR, with the orders prohibiting her from accessing information about Adam’s whereabouts, education, health or removing him from the father’s care.
Mr Justice MacDonald ordered that the mother’s passports were returned to her on the basis that liberty-restricting orders such as this must be time-limited and proportionate.
In relation to contact between Adam and his mother, Mr Justice MacDonald ordered that this be limited to indirect contact via an online communication platform due to the ongoing risk to Adam’s safety. The progression of the contact beyond indirect means was held to be entirely at the father’s discretion. Mr Justice MacDonald emphasised that any development of contact should depend upon the mother’s ability to show genuine change, which she had thus far failed to demonstrate.
On 26 August 2025, Mr Justice MacDonald handed down his costs judgment and having found the mother’s litigation conduct “wholly unreasonable and reprehensible”, awarded the following:
- £95,000 in legal costs to the father and,
- £20,000 in pro bono costs to the Access to Justice Foundation
This order highlights the significant contribution of the father’s previous solicitors, the Moore Barlow team as well as that of Hena Vissian – 36 Group Chambers, who acted as the father’s Pro Bono barrister at the final hearing. It acknowledges the importance of ensuring access to justice in complex family litigation.
Moore Barlow’s role
Victoria Walker, a Partner at Moore Barlow, led the team on this matter, supported by Senior Paralegal Lily Jeffree and Associate Natalie Dunn. The team worked closely with counsel to ensure Adam’s welfare was protected and the father’s case was powerfully presented.
Final thoughts and observations
These judgments provide important examples of the Court’s intolerance to litigation misconduct and its dedication to safeguarding children from harm. It further highlights the importance of Pro Bono representation in ensuring access to justice, especially in cases concerning prolonged litigation as a result of misconduct.
It was a privilege to assist the father throughout the final hearing and beyond, helping to secure a safe and stable environment for Adam and contributing to two very important judgments which emphasise accountability, the welfare of the chid and the importance of access to justice.