Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : k-v-a-local-authority-2008-ewca-civ-103
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 29, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86983

(Court of Appeal; Dyson, Smith and Wilson LJJ; 21 February 2008)

When, in family proceedings, a court had made a direction under Children Act 1989, s 37, that a local authority should investigate the circumstances of a person claiming to be a child and when, in response to the direction, the local authority informed the court of their conclusion, following investigation, that the person was not a child, the court was entitled to direct that a fact-finding hearing should take place in order to determine the issue as to whether or not the person was a child. The local authority was entitled to submit to the court that there was no power to make a direction under s 37 because there was no 'child' or because there were no family proceedings, or because no question arose with respect to the child's welfare, but s 37 did not confer on a local authority the right to determine whether any of the three threshold requirements for the exercise of a judicial power under s 37 were satisfied. When making a direction under s 37 the court had to be satisfied that the proceedings were not a contrivance to secure the facility to challenge a local authority's assessment of a person's age in a judicial enquiry de novo, which would run counter to the statutory scheme for the discharge of local authority functions.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from