The court considered whether it could continue with an appeal where the practical issues had been resolved.
Held: ‘Mr. Harrison explained that the appeal was being brought by the local authority as a ‘test case’ to obtain clear guidance urgently needed from this court concerning the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to the special guardianship procedures. The Appellant was a major local authority with a substantial case load of litigated child care cases. It had a legitimate interest in bringing proceedings to obtain clarification of provisions and procedures affecting an increasing number of cases.
Mr. Harrison submitted, accordingly, that a point of principle was involved. Due to the importance of the points which arose, therefore, Mr. Harrison invited us to rule on them.
Having heard further argument and considered the matter, we came to the conclusion that we would hear the appeal. We did so because we accepted that the points raised in this appeal are important and would be likely to arise again in any event. In practical terms, counsel on all sides had come to court prepared to argue the appeal. We accept, furthermore, that the local authority was taking a principled stance by implementing paragraph 4 of the judge’s order whilst, at the same time, seeking permission to appeal against it. Having heard full argument, we reserved judgment.’
Thorpe, Tuckey, Wall LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1748,  2 WLR 1130,  Fam 41,  1 FCR 121,  1 FLR 564
England and Wales
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.278315