Click the case name for better results:

Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure): FD 19 Mar 2004

The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings be in public. Held: The applicant and her solicitors had already made significant … Continue reading Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure): FD 19 Mar 2004

In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995

The court was asked whether the daughter of Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keays should be permitted to take part in a television programme about the specialist help she was receiving for her special educational needs. Held: The court refused to vary an injunction against publication of any details with regard to a particular child. This … Continue reading In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995

Re S (Children: Care Plan); In re W and B (Children: Care plan) In re W (Child: Care plan): HL 14 Mar 2002

The Court of Appeal had imposed conditions upon the care plan to be implemented by the local authorities, identifying certain ‘starred’ essential milestones. The local authorities appealed. Held: This was not a legitimate extension of the powers contained in the 1989 Act. There exist clear problems in local authorities implementing care plans, and those difficulties … Continue reading Re S (Children: Care Plan); In re W and B (Children: Care plan) In re W (Child: Care plan): HL 14 Mar 2002

In re V (a Child) (Care: pre-birth actions): CA 12 Oct 2004

Immediately after a child was born, the social worker began proceedings for it to be taken into care. The judge severely criticised the actions of the social worker before the birth. The local authority now appealed against an order at the conclusion of care proceedings that they should pay each parent damages in the sum … Continue reading In re V (a Child) (Care: pre-birth actions): CA 12 Oct 2004

In re M (a Child) (Disclosure: Children and Family Reporter): CA 31 Jul 2002

A Children and Family reporter became concerned at the possibility of abuse of children as a result of information gained whilst involved in private law proceedings. He sought to report those concerns to the statutory authorities. It had become clear that it was crucially important that professions within the child care professions must communicate properly … Continue reading In re M (a Child) (Disclosure: Children and Family Reporter): CA 31 Jul 2002

In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions): CA 5 Jul 2001

It should be routine that, when presenting a case before a court to apply for a care order, the applicant authority should provide a written statement of the reasons, upon which it argued that the threshold conditions had been met. That statement should be based upon the evidence available at the time the decision to … Continue reading In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions): CA 5 Jul 2001

In re S (a child) (Care proceedings: Contact): FD 5 Jul 2005

The one month old baby had been taken into the care of the local authority. The authority appealed the extent of contact with the baby. Held: The appeal failed. It was not wholly improper to allow for the practicalities of arranging such contact, including the financial resources available to meet them. The order was to … Continue reading In re S (a child) (Care proceedings: Contact): FD 5 Jul 2005

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

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd: CA 31 Mar 2006

The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant appealed against refusal of an award under the 1976 Act. The judge had decided that it was not part … Continue reading Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd: CA 31 Mar 2006

Re L (Fact-Finding Hearing: Fairness): CA 17 Feb 2022

‘The principal issue arising on this appeal in care proceedings concerning a little girl, L, is whether the process by which the recorder reached the conclusion that the threshold criteria under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 were satisfied was fair. The appellant, Z, who is L’s father, contends that certain of the findings made … Continue reading Re L (Fact-Finding Hearing: Fairness): CA 17 Feb 2022

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council ex parte Damoah: QBD 31 Dec 1998

A local authority, having once decided that a child was in need of welfare assistance, could not withdraw that, after the mother refused assistance to return to her own country, where the child’s long terms interests could properly be served by such assistance. Citations: Times 31-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999 Statutes: Children Act 1989 Part III Children, … Continue reading Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council ex parte Damoah: QBD 31 Dec 1998

Re B (minors) (Care proceedings: practice): FD 1999

Section 31 and its associated emergency and interim provisions comprise the only court mechanism available to a local authority to protect a child from risk. The interpretation of the ‘attributable’ condition adopted by the House of Lords is necessary to avoid the unacceptable consequence that, if the court cannot identify which of a child’s carers … Continue reading Re B (minors) (Care proceedings: practice): FD 1999

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

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

Re M (A Child) sub nom PM v MB and M (a child): CA 31 Jul 2013

‘Since 1 December 2013 and by section 4(1) CA 1989 as inserted by section 111 Adoption and Children Act 2002, an unmarried father acquires parental responsibility by the inclusion of his name on the child’s birth certificate. That legislative change accompanied society’s recognition of and expectations for the exercise of parental responsibility by parents who … Continue reading Re M (A Child) sub nom PM v MB and M (a child): CA 31 Jul 2013

Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence): SC 3 Mar 2010

The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to a fair trial of all concerned. Held: The existing law erects a … Continue reading In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence): SC 3 Mar 2010

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

Lauritzen A/A v Wijsmuller BV;( ‘The Super Servant Two’): CA 12 Oct 1989

Bingham LJ discussed the nature of frustration of contract: ‘The essence of frustration is that it is caused by some unforeseen supervening event over which the parties to the contract have no control and for which they are therefore not responsible. To say that the supervening event occurs without the default or blame or responsibility … Continue reading Lauritzen A/A v Wijsmuller BV;( ‘The Super Servant Two’): CA 12 Oct 1989

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

Re A (a Minor): CA 31 Jul 1997

After a family break up there had been continued litigation, and a refusal to comply with court orders by the mother. Eventually, the contact between mother an children all but broke down. There were three children. As the two elder children in turn . .

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

Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A: HL 16 Mar 2000

A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B. Held: Even though the parents could not be held responsible, the threshold conditions which … Continue reading Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A: HL 16 Mar 2000

Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General: CA 1993

The court rejected an argument that ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ in the subsection was to be equated with ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Citations: [1993] 1 FLR 28 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings) FD 2-Jan-1993 It was again argued … Continue reading Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General: CA 1993

Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

Hale LJ said that ‘a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not’. Judges: Hale LJ Citations: [2001] 1 FLR 611 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County … Continue reading Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

Re G (Care proceedings: split trials): CA 2001

In a situation where an application is made for a care order, and the threshold criteria are met, but the court cannot decide which carer is responsible, the preferable interpretation is that in such cases the court is able to proceed at the welfare stage on the footing that each of the possible perpetrators is … Continue reading Re G (Care proceedings: split trials): CA 2001

Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

The threshold conditions for the making of a care order, relate to the absence of proper care of a child, and the suffering of significant harm whilst in care arrangements then prevailing. There was no requirement on the court that it be able to apportion any direct responsibility for that harm to any individual person. … Continue reading Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998

The date for consideration of whether the first or second threshold criteria had been met for care was when application made, or if continuous temporary arrangements for care made, from the date those arrangements were installed. Consistency between limbs was required. Citations: Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 29-Jul-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Children Updated: … Continue reading Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998

Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

Where a supervision order was sought by local authority in respect of allegations made which were awaiting trial, and an order could be made before the criminal findings where enough was admitted by the carer to support the need for a supervision order. Citations: Gazette 01-Jul-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

Plymouth City Council v C and Another: CA 21 Mar 2000

Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the period to be disregarded under the Act for any temporary placement. The court reaffirmed the simple test … Continue reading Plymouth City Council v C and Another: CA 21 Mar 2000

Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council: CA 21 Jul 1999

When two local authorities were competing not to be responsible for the costs of a child committed to care, and the child had proper connections with both areas, the issue was to be decided by asking first whether the child had in fact any ‘ordinary residence’ as such, which would settle the issue in almost … Continue reading Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council: CA 21 Jul 1999

In re G (A Minor)(Care Order: Threshold Conditions): FD 1995

The court considered the standard of evidence required to satisfy the threshold condition under the Act: ‘The inescapable construction of section 31, in my judgment, is that the court has to be satisfied by evidence that the significant harm suffered by the child is attributable to the care, or absence of care, given to the … Continue reading In re G (A Minor)(Care Order: Threshold Conditions): FD 1995

In re A (a Child) (Care proceedings: Non-accidental injury): CA 1 Jul 2003

The 11 year old child had been subject to non-accidental injury. The perpetrator could not be identified form among those who had care of him. The Family Court had held the first part of a split trial. The judge had been unable to exclude the immediate family and carers from the pool of possible perpetratrors. … Continue reading In re A (a Child) (Care proceedings: Non-accidental injury): CA 1 Jul 2003

In re B (A child) (Care proceedings: Diplomatic Immunity): FD 30 Jul 2002

An order was sought in care proceedings with regard to a child of a family where the father was a member of the administrative and diplomatic staff of a diplomatic mission. Held: Where a child was present in the UK at the time of the application, an English court had jurisdiction. Such a worker was … Continue reading In re B (A child) (Care proceedings: Diplomatic Immunity): FD 30 Jul 2002

Re M (A Minor): CA 8 Nov 1993

For an order to be made, the child was to be continuing to suffer harm at the hearing date and the harm should resultant from the alleged lack of care. Citations: Ind Summary 08-Nov-1993 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85819

In re Y and K (Minors) (Split hearing: Evidence): CA 7 Apr 2003

In a ‘split trial’ procedure under the Act, it was wrong to bring in rules from criminal procedures. A witness who was competent was also compellable. Dicta in In re B were made without reference to section 98. Judges: Hale, Thorpe LJJ Citations: Times 18-Apr-2003 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31 98 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading In re Y and K (Minors) (Split hearing: Evidence): CA 7 Apr 2003

North Yorkshire County Council v Wiltshire County Council: FD 1 Jun 1999

Where a child had returned to a district, and both parents and foster parents had also left the area, it was unrealistic to lay responsibility for the child’s care at the former authority, and the proper responsible authority was that within which the child now resided. Citations: Times 01-Jun-1999, Gazette 27-Jun-1999 Statutes: Children Act 1989 … Continue reading North Yorkshire County Council v Wiltshire County Council: FD 1 Jun 1999

Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria): SC 12 Jun 2013

B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of fact. Held: (Lady Hale dissenting) The appeal was dismissed. … Continue reading Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria): SC 12 Jun 2013

Re C: FC 24 Oct 2014

Application by the Local Authority for the making of a Care Order pursuant to s.31(1) Children Act 1989 in respect of ‘C’, Rawkins HHJ [2014] EWFC B159 Bailii Children Act 1989 31(1) England and Wales Children Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540381

In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings): FD 2 Jan 1993

It was again argued that ‘likely’ meant more probable than not. Held: The argument was not open to the appellants in the light of Newham London Borough Council. Thorpe J [1993] 1 FLR 824 Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) England and Wales Citing: Applied – Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General CA 1993 The court rejected … Continue reading In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings): FD 2 Jan 1993

London Borough of Lewisham v D and Others: FD 29 Mar 2010

The local authority was investigating allegations involving the family history of children in their care. They sought disclosure by the respondent police authority of the results DNA comparison tests to assist their investigations. The court considered whether a matching report on a DNA sample itself was derived from the sample. Held: Disclosure could not be … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v D and Others: FD 29 Mar 2010

Lancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others: FD 4 Dec 2008

The local authority sought a care order, alleging serious physical abuse of the child. The mother said that any injuries had been inflicted by the father. The father said that the cause was the mother. Held: The injuries were not likely to have been accidental. The court concluded that the likely perpetrator was the father. … Continue reading Lancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others: FD 4 Dec 2008

Tower Hamlets v M and Others: FD 27 Mar 2015

The authority sought orders to prevent the respondent children travelling to countries controlled by the ISIS groups. The parents being unlikely to be effective to restrain them, the court had made them wards of court. Held: ‘the status of a Ward of the High Court of England and Wales has achieved international recognition. For this … Continue reading Tower Hamlets v M and Others: FD 27 Mar 2015

AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders): CA 16 Mar 2009

The father sought leave to appeal against care orders made in respect of his three children. The family were Pakistani Pathan muslims. There had been disputes and violence within the extended family. One family member sought protection but was now alleged herself to be responsible for threats and violence. After a fire, the children were … Continue reading AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders): CA 16 Mar 2009

In re M and R (Child abuse: Expert Evidence): CA 21 May 1996

On an application for a care order the judge found there was a real possibility that sexual abuse had occurred but the evidence was not sufficient to prove the allegations to the requisite standard. The threshold criteria were met on another ground. The children had suffered emotional harm at the hands of the mother and … Continue reading In re M and R (Child abuse: Expert Evidence): CA 21 May 1996

London Borough of Hillingdon and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and others: Admn 6 Nov 2008

The claimant challenged the substantial increase in court fees in public law children cases in the Fees Orders. The respondent said that the orders were intended to reflect the true costs of such proceedings and that funding had been provided to local authorities to match the increases. The claimants said there had been inadequate consultation … Continue reading London Borough of Hillingdon and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and others: Admn 6 Nov 2008

In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing): HL 3 Apr 2003

The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible. Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court must next consider the welfare stage. Inability to identify the perpetrator is not … Continue reading In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing): HL 3 Apr 2003

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995