Search Results for: Children

Click the case name for better results:

Re B R and C (Children): CA 12 Nov 2002

Failure by fathers of children subject to proceedings not complying with orders for disclosure of medical records. Judges: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P Citations: [2002] EWCA Civ 1825 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.217788

P v BW (Children Cases: Hearings in Public): FD 2003

The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing. Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the fair trial provisions of Article 61) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human … Continue reading P v BW (Children Cases: Hearings in Public): FD 2003

M (Children) (Contact Order): CA 11 Apr 2005

Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment. Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 615, [2005] 2 FLR 1006 Links: Bailii Statutes: Contempt of Court Act 1981 14.2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Crystal … Continue reading M (Children) (Contact Order): CA 11 Apr 2005

A (a child), A (Children): CA 27 Jul 2005

Renewed application by a guardian in care proceedings for permission to appeal. The guardian complained that the judge had taken matters too quickly, not allowing him to develop his arguments or to address the welfare checklist. Leave given. Judges: Wall J, Black J Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 1093 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children … Continue reading A (a child), A (Children): CA 27 Jul 2005

Families for Children v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Feb 2005

VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Welfare services – Independent profit-making foster agency – Supplies to local authorities – Whether supply of welfare services – Yes – VAT Act 1994 Schedule 9 Group item 9 – Whether supplied by ‘organization recognized as charitable’ by the laws of the UK – EC Sixth Directive Art 13.1(g) and (h) … Continue reading Families for Children v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Feb 2005

In re M and M C (Children): CA 12 Mar 2002

At the fact finding hearing, the judge had found that the father, and not the mother, had inflicted the child’s injuries. But the mother later told a social worker, whether accurately or otherwise, that she had inflicted some of them. Held: At the next hearing, the judge should subject the mother’s apparent confession to rigorous … Continue reading In re M and M C (Children): CA 12 Mar 2002

H-W (Children) and In The Matter of H-W (Children) (No 2): SC 15 Jun 2022

These appeals concern the proportionality of care orders made in relation to three children and appellate review of those orders. Judges: Lord Hodge, Deputy President Lord Kitchin Lord Burrows Lord Hughes Dame Siobhan Keegan Citations: [2022] UKSC 17 Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.678550

In re G (Children) (Foreign contact order: Enforcement): CA 11 Nov 2003

The father sought to have registered here, a French order for parental contact. The mother had brought the child to England with the consent of the court, and then obtained an apparently conflicting order here. Held: There was a conflict between the Regulation and the Convention as scheduled to the 1985 Act. The London order … Continue reading In re G (Children) (Foreign contact order: Enforcement): CA 11 Nov 2003

HQ Service Children’s Education (MOD) v Davitt: EAT 28 Jan 1999

Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: [1999] UKEAT 1358 – 98 – 2801 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980 The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. … Continue reading HQ Service Children’s Education (MOD) v Davitt: EAT 28 Jan 1999

In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition): CA 30 Jul 2001

Thorpe LJ said: ‘What is the rationalisation for a different test to be applied to an application to relocate to Belfast, as opposed to, say, an application to relocate from Gloucester to Dublin? All that the court can do is to remember that in each and every case the decision must rest on the paramount … Continue reading In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition): CA 30 Jul 2001