header-logo header-logo

27 November 2008
Issue: 7347 / Categories: Case law , Child law , Law digest , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family law

Re F-H (children) (fact-finding hearing) [2008] EWCA Civ 1249, [2008] All ER (D) 150 (Nov)

In family proceedings, the court has a discretion whether to hear evidence in relation to disputed matters of fact with a view to determining them.

Where a judge is considering, whether to abort a pre-arranged fact-finding hearing, he should ask whether any fresh, or freshly discovered, circumstances should lead him to depart from the earlier decision and should take account of the costs already incurred and the degree to which a refusal at that stage to conduct the hearing would waste them, together with any special features present in the case.

The fact that certain material need not be considered before a conclusion is reached that the court has power to make a care order does not support a conclusion that it does not need to be considered before deciding whether the optimum outcome for the children is to make such an order.

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

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll