header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Case law , Child law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-detail

Family law

Re B-M (children) (care orders: risk) [2009] EWCA Civ 205, [2009] All ER (D) 155 (Mar)

Where there is a conflict of expert opinion, the judge has to decide which evidence he prefers. Provided he explains his reasoning, the judge cannot be criticised for rejecting expert evidence which is in conflict with other expert evidence which he accepts. Where a judge wrestles with a very difficult case, and reaches a given conclusion, he enjoys a very broad ambit of discretion. In such a case, where a judge reaches a conclusion which he reasonably regards as the better of two imperfect solutions, his decision is likely to be upheld unless some palpable error of law or reasoning can be identified.

Issue: 7362 / Categories: Case law , Child law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll