Skip to content

May the law be with you – lex vobiscum

Law
- More Recent Cases
- e-Legal Gathering
- Case Layout
- FAQ
- Searching
- Areas of Law
- law index
- Courts
- Reports
- Judges
- Case Names
Privacy
About
Advertising
Registration

Re S (A Minor): CA 2 May 1994

Requiring undertaking to allow blood transfusions was wrong – conditions rare.

Citations:

Ind Summary 02-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85866

Posted on April 28, 2022April 28, 2022 by dlsPosted in Adoption

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council: HL 7 Jul 1995

Next Next post: Regina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood and Others; Regina v Islington London Borough Council Ex Parte Mcmillan: QBD 20 Jun 1995

Search for:

Areas of Law:

Recent Posts

British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots’ Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019
Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019
Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020
Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020
Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020
Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019
Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019
McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020
EA006092019: AIT 2 Mar 2020
PA087892019: AIT 5 Mar 2020
HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020
PA074632016: AIT 20 Dec 2019
HU086632019: AIT 13 Jan 2020
HU117362018: AIT 25 Nov 2019
JR028012019: AIT 25 Feb 2020
PA110232018: AIT 13 Nov 2019
HU169762018: AIT 13 Sep 2019
HU132342017: AIT 12 Jul 2019
PA090692018: AIT 11 Jul 2019
PA020142019: AIT 5 Aug 2019
Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999
Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999
Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999
Dr Adoko v Jemal: CA 22 Jun 1999
Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999
Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999
EA030532018: AIT 24 Jun 2019
HU127182016: AIT 15 May 2019
HU226292018: AIT 14 May 2019
PA117022018: AIT 7 May 2019
IA316302015: AIT 2 May 2019
Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999
London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999
Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999
Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999
Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999
Osman v Elasha: CA 24 Jun 1999
Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999
Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999
Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999
Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999
MP v Dainty: CA 21 Jun 1999
Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995
South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995
Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999
Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995
London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999
Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999
Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999
Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999

Meta

Log in
Entries feed
Comments feed
WordPress.org

swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk

Search for:

IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. We do not provide advice. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Only full case reports are accepted in court.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Colinear by Automattic.