In re A and L (Children) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasoning) (Practice Note): CA 27 Oct 2011

The mother appealed against a factual findings made in the course of care proceedings as to her involvement in sexual abuse of the children.
Held: The court gave guidance as to the reconsideration of a court’s decision. Munby LJ said: ‘it is the responsibility of the advocate, whether or not invited to do so by the judge, to raise with the judge and draw to his attention any material omission in the judgment, any genuine query or ambiguity which arises on the judgment, and any perceived lack of reasons or other perceived deficiency in the judge’s reasoning process.’


Patten, Munby, Tomlinson LJJ


[2011] EWCA Civ 1205, [2012] Fam Law 8, [2012] 1 FLR 134, [2012] 1 FCR 379, [2012] CP Rep 6, [2012] 1 WLR 595




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re L and B (Children) CA 18-Jul-2012
In care proceedings, there had been protracted fact finding hearings. The judge had given a preliminary report as to her conclusions, but received a communication from counsel for the father requesting her to re-address certain aspects. She later . .
CitedRe L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448293