Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce
and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email firstname.lastname@example.org
Supreme Court hears appeal of Re S  EWCA Civ 135
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
The Supreme Court hears the appeal today of Re S (Appeal from Care and Placement Orders)
 EWCA Civ 135,  1 FLR 130
to decide whether the approach to ordering costs against local authorities in care proceedings (set out in Re T (Costs: Care Proceedings: Serious Allegation Not Proved)
 UKSC 36,  1 FLR 133
) extends to the costs of appealing the orders made in such proceedings.
Writing for Family Law ( Fam Law 991
) Andrew Bainham and Hannah Markham, who represented the Father and local authority respectively in Re S
, have reviewed the Court of Appeal judgment, where the Father's appeal was allowed and the care and placement orders made by the judge were set aside, as a study in what may now be required.
'The decision of the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s 47(5))  EWCA Civ 1146,  1 FLR 1035 in September 2013 has had major implications for parents, local authorities and the courts. It has provoked a fundamental reappraisal of the use of adoption as a child protection mechanism and of the legal requirements which must be observed where placement orders are sought. The newly enacted Children and Families Act 2014 contains provisions relating to care and adoption which may be thought to pull in the opposite direction by encouraging the use of adoption and attempting to streamline the legal process relating to care and placement proceedings.'
The respondent’s appeal against a full care order made in respect of his daughter was allowed by the Court of Appeal despite a finding that the appellant local authority had not engaged in reprehensible behaviour or taken an unreasonable stance in the hearing at first instance, which would be required to depart from the normal rule that costs were not awarded in children’s cases. A costs order was made against the appellant in respect of the costs of the appeal.A live video stream can be viewed here at 10:30 am.Online subscribers can access Andrew Bainham and Hannah Markham's article, 'Living with Re B-S: Re S and its implications for parents, local authorities and the courts by Andrew Bainham and Hannah Markham', here.
For details on how you can subscribe to Family Law or for any offers, including 20% of your annual subscription as part of our January sale, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 918 1555, or email: email@example.com