Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: Re S (Eligible Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 1140

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : re-s-eligible-child-2008-ewca-civ-1140
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 8, 2008, 11:27 AM
Article ID : 87111

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Wall LJJ; 8 July 2008)

On the basis of undertakings by the authority to serve various documents, including a pathway plan, the proceedings concerning an eligible child were dismissed. However, the authority failed to comply with its undertakings; the authority had ignored its duty to comply with court orders on three previous occasions. The parents appealed the order dismissing the proceedings.

Managers in social services departments must understand that court orders were to be obeyed: this was a particularly poor example of an utter failure to do so. If time had permitted it, the director of the social services department would have been directed personally to attend court to proffer an explanation and apology; instead the court would direct that the director write to the Court of Appeal and the court at first instance to explain the disgraceful failure of duty and to proffer sincere apologies. The judge's basis for making the order had been frustrated by the local authority, therefore the appeal was allowed. The authority's undertakings were replaced by an order requiring the authority to serve the documents within 3 days, to be endorsed with a penal notice. Contemptuous disregard of the order could lead to an application to commit the director of the social services department, who was fortunate not to be facing a summons for contempt at this stage. With the benefit of hindsight it would perhaps have been better if the original order had dismissed the proceedings upon production of the relevant documents, so that the original judge could have dealt with a failure to produce them.

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