Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004

The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious faiths. Held: A distinction was to be made between domestic cases involving actions within … Continue reading Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004

JA (Meaning of “Access Rights”): UTIAC 17 Apr 2015

UTIAC 1. Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent. 2. ‘Access’ in the … Continue reading JA (Meaning of “Access Rights”): UTIAC 17 Apr 2015

Re C (Children): SC 14 Feb 2018

‘This appeal concerns the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It raises general questions relating to: (1) the place which the habitual residence of the child occupies in the scheme of that Convention, and (2) whether and when a wrongful retention of a child may occur if the travelling parent originally … Continue reading Re C (Children): SC 14 Feb 2018

Sutton London Borough Council v Davis: FD 17 Mar 1994

Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. Gazette 18-May-1994, Independent 17-Mar-1994, Times 17-Mar-1994 Children Act 1989 77(6) England and Wales Citing: See Also – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (Number 2) FD 8-Jul-1994 … Continue reading Sutton London Borough Council v Davis: FD 17 Mar 1994

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009

The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside the rule-maker’s power. Held: Even though the rule-making power is wide … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009

Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 5 Feb 2014

The court was asked whether, where a party loses mental capacity in the course of proceedings, such loss of capacity has the automatic and immediate effect of terminating their solicitor’s retainer. The Costs judge had held that, as a matter of law, a supervening incapacity even if intermittent, automatically frustrates and thereby terminates a contract … Continue reading Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 5 Feb 2014

Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. He now sought damages for his loss of earnings through detention in prison and mental hospital. … Continue reading Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2): FD 14 Jul 2009

The father applied to the court to have the media excluded from the hearing into the residence and contact claims relating to his daughter. Held: It was for the party seeking such an order to justify it. In deciding whether or not to exclude the press in the welfare or privacy interests of a party … Continue reading Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2): FD 14 Jul 2009

Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc: HL 20 Apr 1989

In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and received a copy of the report, and relying on it, had bought the house. … Continue reading Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc: HL 20 Apr 1989

London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E (Failure To Comply With Directions): FD 17 Oct 2016

Authority’s Failure to comply with directions The court considered the failure by the local authority applicant repeatedly to comply with court orders whils applying for care orders. Held: ‘Case management directions are not mere administrative pedantry. The seemingly mundane nature of case management directions belies the fact that they are crucial to the fair administration … Continue reading London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E (Failure To Comply With Directions): FD 17 Oct 2016

Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal): SC 10 Jun 2011

Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would be at risk if returned, alleging psychological abuse by F. She … Continue reading Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal): SC 10 Jun 2011

In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner): HL 26 Jul 2006

The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence and or contact. The other mother took the children secretly to … Continue reading In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner): HL 26 Jul 2006

Soering v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jul 1989

(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be made to the judge at the time of sentencing that the … Continue reading Soering v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jul 1989

Re Gard (A Child): FD 24 Jul 2017

The baby boy suffered life threatening conditions. Doctors at the hospital sought directions to allow the withdrawal of life support. His parents wanted him to be given the chance of experimental treatment in the US. In April a declaration had been made allowing the withdrawal of life support. The parents appeals had been rejected by … Continue reading Re Gard (A Child): FD 24 Jul 2017

Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others: QBD 17 Oct 2011

The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children during school time. The pool supervision wasthrough employees of a company … Continue reading Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others: QBD 17 Oct 2011

PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: SC 19 Jul 2017

No anonymity for investigation suspect The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting publication of his name and involvement in the inquiry. Held: (Kerr and … Continue reading PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: SC 19 Jul 2017

Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School: CA 13 Oct 2017

Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes. Held: The action was discriminatory. However, the scheme operated against individuals, both … Continue reading Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School: CA 13 Oct 2017

A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013

Acquisition of Habitual Residence Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day. Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member state such as the United States. The Regulation also deals with how child … Continue reading A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013

ZM v JM; Re M (children) (fact-finding hearing: burden of proof); In re M (a Child) (Non-accidental injury: Burden of proof): CA 19 Nov 2008

When a court considered which of two parents might be responsible for a non-accidental injury to their child, what the court cannot do is decide that one parent is the perpetrator but that the other parent cannot be excluded as the perpetrator. Counsel had not brought to the attention of the court when applying for … Continue reading ZM v JM; Re M (children) (fact-finding hearing: burden of proof); In re M (a Child) (Non-accidental injury: Burden of proof): CA 19 Nov 2008

In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008

Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having found some evidence to suggest that … Continue reading In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008

In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof): SC 14 Dec 2009

A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say that the other must have known. Held: … Continue reading In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof): SC 14 Dec 2009

JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry: HL 1989

An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between ourselves and yourselves as principals, we alone being liable to … Continue reading JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry: HL 1989

LTF v LMF: CA 17 Aug 2006

Application by the father of four children, aged between 7 and 15, for permission to appeal against the decision of a circuit judge who refused to permit him to make an application for the implementation of an order for indirect contact with the . .

JA (Meaning of Access Rights”): UTIAC 17 Apr 2015″

References: [2015] UKUT 225 (IAC) Links: Bailii Coram: Clive Lane UTJ UTIAC 1. Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance … Continue reading JA (Meaning of Access Rights”): UTIAC 17 Apr 2015″

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council: Admn 14 Jul 2003

The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he would be entitled to assistance from the respondent. … Continue reading Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council: Admn 14 Jul 2003

MM, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham: Admn 6 Mar 2009

The court considered the extent of an Authority’s duties when a young woman (17) came to its attention under section 17 of the 1989 Act. The claimant was fleeing the domestic violence of her partner. The authority had said that she should seek help not from Social Services but instead through family services or victim … Continue reading MM, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham: Admn 6 Mar 2009