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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

SUPERVISION ORDERS: Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v T [2008] EWCA Civ 199

Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Slug : wakefield-metropolitan-district-council-v-t-2008-ewca-civ-199
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 19, 2008, 06:53 AM
Article ID : 86585

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Arden and Hughes LJJ; 19 March 2008)

Although the judge's pragmatic decision to impose a supervision order for 3 years was extremely sensible in the circumstances of the case, under Children Act 19-89, s 31 and Sch 3, para 6, a judge could provide 3 years protection only by making at least two orders, the first a supervision order of 12 months duration and the second an order extending the first order for 2 years. Difficulties stemmed from this interpretation, not least that it was unclear when an extension could first be issued, but the plain language of the statute required this interpretation. Offering guidance, the court doubted that there would ever be a need to apply to extend a supervision order of 12 months duration before the last quarter of the supervision order's first life; how well within that quarter the application should sensibly be issued depended upon the extent of the issues raised by the application and the ascertainable capacity of the relevant court. The issue of any necessary application to extend should not be delayed so as to imperil the local authority's imperative need for a determination before expiration of the current order.

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