header-logo header-logo

Family law

04 September 2008
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-detail

Re B (children)(placement order: expert reports) [2008] EWCA Civ 835, [2008] All ER (D) 228 (Jul)

The decision to ratify the Agency Adoption Panels decision and to begin the process of applying for a placement order must never be a simple rubber stamp. Panel members should be made fully and properly aware of all the available material relevant to their decision.

It is a matter of judgment for the local authority medical adviser to the panel in each case to decide whether or not panel members need to read any expert report, or whether a summary of it will suffice.

There is, however, a clear duty on the local authority which is conducting the care proceedings to ensure both that all relevant material is made available to the panel, and that the material placed before it is accurate.

Issue: 7335 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll