Joan Connell represented the respondent local authority in proceedings in which the Appellant Mother successfully appealed a refusal for an adjournment for six months at a final hearing. At the time of the final hearing L, was 7 months old. M was a recovering alcoholic who sought further time to demonstrate abstinence and insight into the concerns of the local authority regarding her honesty and ability to work with professionals in the event of a future relapse. The court at first instance refused the application for an adjournment and made care and placement orders. On appeal the final orders were set aside, the adjournment granted and the case set down for a further hearing. The President’s guidance in Re S Child  EWHC was considered.
The leading authority in respect of the reliability of hair strand testing for drugs and how the results of hair tests should be interpreted by practitioners. Ronan O’Donovan appeared on behalf of Lextox, one of the laboratories intervening in ongoing care proceedings where the issue of the mother’s use of drugs was called into dispute by a trichologist. Peter Jackson J held that the variability of findings from hair strand testing does not call into question the underlying science, but underlines the need to treat numerical data with proper caution.
The Local Authority had applied for a Secure Accommodation Order in respect of a 14-year-old boy. This high-profile judgment, delivered in open court, attracted the attention of national media and focuses on the unavailability of placements for a child in secure accommodation.
Mrs Justice Roberts dismisses Wife’s attack of a trust owning shares in companies worth £50m
Joan Connell represented the Local Authority in the case: London Borough of Merton v SB & Ors  EWFC B81.
Mark Twomey QC represented the Respondent Mother, who made a successful application for the transfer of care proceedings to Slovakia under the provisions of Article 15 of BIIR.
Court of Appeal dismisses proposed appellant’s application to set aside consent order made in financial remedy proceedings
Wife’s appeal in financial remedy proceedings in which she sought an anonymity order and argued that the law in this regard should change. Appeal refused