header-logo header-logo

23 October 2008
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-detail

Family law

RK and another v United Kingdom [2008] All ER (D) 143 (Oct)

In deciding whether or not interference with the right to respect for family life is “necessary”, the court has to consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures are “relevant and sufficient”, and whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the interests safeguarded by Art 8.

In the context of care proceedings, mistaken judgments or assessments by professionals do not per se render childcare measures incompatible with the requirements of Art 8. The authorities, medical and social, cannot be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children are proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided.
 

Issue: 7342 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-details

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