Search within Case Law:
Re L (a child) and other appeals (contact applications)
The Court of Appeal set out guidelines for Family judges and magistrates in adjudicating upon contact applications where allegations of domestic violence are involved.
Case date: 19 June 2000
KB (Trinidad and Tobago) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
The Court of Appeal found that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had correctly approached the claimant's case and had been justified in concluding that if the claimant, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, were to be deported it would breach Schedule 1, Part 1, article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Case date: 22 January 2010
*R (on the application of Shoesmith) v Ofsted and others
The Administrative Court held, in dismissing this judicial review, that neither Ofsted, the secretary of state for children, schools and families, nor the local authority (Haringey London Borough Council) had engaged in unfair processes, or otherwise breached principles of natural justice, as those parties' respective decisions/actions affected the claimant, then the director of children and young people's services within the Borough: those actions/decisions were certain directions made by the secretary of state pursuant to section 497A of the Education Act 1996; Ofsted's publication of a report into the working of Haringey's children and young people's department and the other agencies with responsibility for child protection; and Haringey's decision to dismiss the claimant, and the later confirmation of that decision by its appeals panel. The court also commented on the consequence of the present lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which the inter-relation between the secretary of state's powers under section 497A of the 1996 Act and the contractual obligations of an authority towards an employee who had to be removed from a position because of a direction under that section had been considered by parliament and what should be done by the relevant parties so as to ensure the situation which arose in this case did not arise again.
Case date: 23 April 2010
Oxfordshire County Council v JL
The Divisional Court held that the defence provided for in the Education Act 1996, section 443(1) to a charge of failing to comply with a school attendance order was laid fair and square on the defendant parent. Applying that principle to the facts of this case, the Court held that the Oxford justices had not proceeded in the proper way against the respondent in finding her not guilty of the charge. The case was remitted to a differently constituted bench of justices.
Case date: 03 March 2010
*R (on the application of TG) v Lambeth London Borough Council
In this claim for judicial review, the Administrative Court considered various provisions in the Children Act 1989 and the Housing Act 1996, and two authorities, namely, R (on the application of M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (see) (M) and R (on the application of G) v Southwark London Borough Council (see) (G), in finding that the defendant local authority had not been wrong to refuse to deal with the claimant as a 'former relevant child' for the purposes of leaving care support. The Court further held that this case was a 'M type of case' not a 'G type of case'.
Case date: 29 April 2010
Re S (children: interim care order)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in endorsing an interim care order which had had the effect of removing the children from the care of the mother.
Case date: 22 April 2010
Brookes v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had been correct to refuse relief by way of judicial review where the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (the Commission) had had section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991 in mind in circumstances where it had instructed bailiffs and applied for committal or disqualification where the claimant father owed money to the Commission in respect of child maintenance.
Case date: 29 April 2010
In a case where a mother had abducted her child from France, and concealed him for six years, the Family Division found that none of the defences available to the mother pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction could succeed. Accordingly, the child would be returned to France forthwith.
Case date: 07 May 2010
President's Guidance (Split Hearings)
The President of the Family Division issued guidance aimed at assisting judges and magistrates who were invited to direct split hearings.
Case date: 28 May 2010
Re F (children) (care proceedings: interim care order)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had fallen into error in granting the local authority an interim care order in respect of two of the parents' children since she had focused on issues that fell to be addressed at a final hearing and had placed too much weight on the history of the case.
Case date: 15 June 2010
