The Court of Appeal set aside a fact-finding judgment in care proceedings on the grounds that it was insufficiently reasoned; there were “too many actual or arguable deficiencies in the structure and content of the judgment for it to be upheld”. A re-hearing was ordered.
Two further hearings in long-running ancillary relief proceedings.
Cohen J struck out the husband’s claim for damages in respect of W’s deceit over the paternity of C.
Cobb J gives reasons for approving an end of life care plan of palliative care for a 20 year old man with severe aplastic anaemia, following an unsuccessful bone marrow transplant.
Mr Justice Cobb found that the Senior Courts Act 1981 determines the allocation of costs for an application under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult.
This judgment concerns the welfare and living arrangements for 25 children.
Application by a husband for Decrees Absolute and Nisi, and all related orders be set aside due to issues with service.
General civil restraint order, costs orders, and injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977 (which included protection for the applicant’s solicitor and barrister) granted in one of the worst cases of vexatious litigation misconduct Mostyn J had ever encountered.
It was in the interests of AB to be fitted with an intrauterine contraceptive device when she underwent a caesarean section with a spinal anaesthetic.
MacDonald J’s judgment in a final hearing of care proceedings, in which he rejected a request by the mother to revisit earlier findings of non-accidental injury on the basis of a subsequent admission by the father. The judge further favoured an ICO, rather than a final care order or SGO, as the appropriate means to test a placement with the child’s grandparents.
An appeal by a local authority against an order made by Her Honour Judge Cronin, on 29 July of this year by which she discharged a care order in respect of six children. Human Rights Act considerations.
A court should be wary of making findings/orders on alternate bases ‘just in case’, as this can over-complicate matters which should be kept simple. In this instance, the court’s making of an order setting aside a disposition under s37 MCA 1973, when no application had been made and no submissions on that basis heard, and when in any event the husband had been found to hold the beneficial interest in the relevant property.
The court therefore allowed the appeal on two grounds but this did not cause any alteration of the final order made in financial remedy proceedings, and did not require the setting aside of that order in its totality as sought by the appellant and the husband.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in judicial review proceedings concerning the provision of and payment for services under Care Act 2014 and Children and Families Act 2014. It also considered the circumstances when a family member can be a litigation friend.
