Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
BRUSSELS II REVISED: Health Service Executive v SC and AC (C-92/12 PPU)
Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jun 18, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID :99027
(Court of Justice of the European Union, 26 April 2012)
The vulnerable child who had exceptional care needs had been placed in various care homes in Ireland during her life. There had been repeated episodes of risk-taking, aggression, violence and self harm and her most recent placement had failed. Clinical professionals were in agreement that child needed to remain in a secure placement for her own protection and so that she could receive therapeutic interventions.
They were unable to identify an institution in Ireland which could cater for child's needs but one in England was a possibility. Consent was obtained from Central Authority in England and the High Court ordered the child's placement but the High Court in Ireland made a reference for preliminary ruling on compliance with Brussels II Revised.