Cases Archive

MacDonald J refuses Local Authority’s application for Interim Care Order in respect of a child at risk of removal from the jurisdiction to partake in a forced marriage on the basis that the existing Forced Marriage Protection Order adequately safeguarded that child against the risks

Application by the mother at the PTR to strike out the father’s application for the return of two children to Spain and, in the alternative, for permission to instruct a psychologist to assess the mother’s fear of the father. Both applications were refused by Baker J

Consideration of the extent to which monies held by a solicitor’s former practice would vest in the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the event of an intervention into the solicitor’s practice and the meaning of “practice” and “former practice” under the Solicitors Act 1974 Sch.1 Pt II.

Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in the third reported judgment in these proceedings.  Here, Moylan J deals with the proposed adopters’ application for an Adoption Order, which was opposed by the mother – supported by representations made on behalf of the Latvian authorities.  The application was granted.

Committal application arising in Schedule 1 proceedings arising from alleged failure of the Respondent to complete properly a Form E. Judge finds a wilful breach and sentences Respondent to 14 days’ imprisonment, suspended for a short period to allow one last opportunity to comply with the Order

The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa, the Vienna Convention and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The Latvian Ministry of Justice intervened in the appeal in opposition to the Local Authority and in support of the mother. The mother’s appeal was dismissed.  Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority.

Ronan O’Donovan, leading Ewan Murray, represented the Local Authority in this appeal, brought by a father against the making of a Care Order.  The appeal was dismissed and, in so doing, the Court of Appeal criticised the way in which the appeal was presented on behalf of the father.  The father had hitherto been a self-representing litigant but, when such a litigant secures the services of counsel, he or she should seek permission to serve a single, composite skeleton argument which incorporates all the submissions which counsel proposes to advance.  The detail of the submissions made at this appeal was not set out in writing, despite calls from the respondents to do so, and this had the effect of ambushing the Court and respondents

Consideration of jurisdiction to make public law orders in respect of a child. Cobb J found jurisdiction of necessity.