Click the case name for better results:

In Re M (Minor: Care Order): FD 20 Oct 1993

A Care order to protect a child against danger may not be made after the risk subsides. Citations: Times 20-Oct-1993 Statutes: Children Act 1989 3(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Re M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions) HL 7-Jun-1994 The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder … Continue reading In Re M (Minor: Care Order): FD 20 Oct 1993

Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 21 Nov 2013

The applicant sought housing as a homeless person. Held: Moses LJ said: ‘The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to that question cannot differ [according to] whether the local authority takes into account the duty under section 11 of the Children’s [sic] Act or not.’ Moses, Beatson, … Continue reading Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 21 Nov 2013

Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Jul 2011

The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts. Held: The Revenue’s cross appeal succeeded. As a life assurance company, the amounts to be taken into account in computing … Continue reading Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Jul 2011

Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012

The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as regards the granting of concessions outside the immigration rules and of their … Continue reading Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012

In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan): HL 14 Mar 2002

Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed ‘starring system’ was inconsistent in an important respect with the scheme of the Children Act 1989, … Continue reading In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan): HL 14 Mar 2002