In 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 delivered a judgment which differed substantially. The parties complained that the judge had not explained the change .
Held: The judge had been bound by her findings. However the judgment delivered did not differ to such an extent as to amount to a breach.


Thorpe, Rimer LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley


[2012] EWCA Civ 984, [2012] WLR(D) 240




England and Wales


CitedIn 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 . .
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRe 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: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462949