header-logo header-logo

30 May 2014
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Re B (a child) (care proceedings: appellate judge’s power to remake decision) [2014] EWCA Civ 565, [2014] All ER (D) 88 (May)

On an appellate review, the judge’s first task was to identify the error of fact, value judgment or law sufficient to permit the appellate court to interfere. There was always a value judgment to be performed which was the comparative welfare analysis and the proportionality evaluation of the interference that the proposed order represented and accordingly there was a review to be undertaken about whether that judgment was right or wrong. Armed with the error identified, the judge then had a discretionary decision to make whether to re-make the decision complained of or remit the proceedings for a re-hearing. The judge had the power to fill gaps in the reasoning of the first court and give additional reasons in the same way that was permitted to an appeal court when a respondent’s notice had been filed. In the exercise of its discretion, the court had to keep firmly in mind the procedural protections provided by

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll