header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 October 2009 / Dorothea Gartland
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Child law
printer mail-detail

Child law update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Dorothea Gartland analyses the concept of significant harm

The decision of the Court of Appeal in MA, SA, HA (Children by their Childrens’ Guardian) v MA, HA & The City and Council of Swansea [2009] EWCA Civ 853, [2009] All ER (D) 354 (Jul) will be of particular interest to practitioners in regard to the concept of significant harm under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989).

As Ward LJ explains in his judgment: “This is, as I understand it, the first time this Court has had to consider when the dividing line between harm and significant harm is established.” The majority decision was to dismiss the appeal by the children’s guardian against the findings of the trial judge that the threshold had not been crossed in care proceedings and the subsequent dismissal of the care proceedings.

The facts

The parents were both from Pakistan and had arrived in the UK and sought asylum. Their claims had been refused.

While in the UK, the mother had three children and at the time of the appeal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll