Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
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