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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll