header-logo header-logo

01 May 2026
Issue: 8159 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 1 May 2026

Adoption

Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant, AM, the adoptive mother’s, appeal, holding that the High Court has no inherent parens patriae jurisdiction to revoke a validly made adoption order. AM was the adoptive mother of two children, X and Y. X and Y are no longer children, having both now turned 18. The central question was whether the court possesses any jurisdiction to set aside a validly made adoption order in favour of AM, other than by way of appeal. The court held that adoption is entirely a creature of statute and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) makes no provision for revocation of a validly made adoption order on welfare grounds, save for the narrow legitimation exception in s 55. The parens patriae jurisdiction has never extended to reordering parental responsibility by extinguishing it in natural parents and transferring it to adoptive parents. Such powers were only created by statute through the Adoption of Children

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
FIFA’s 2026 Men's World Cup is already mired in controversy, with complaints over ‘excessive prices’ and opaque ticketing. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys warns that governing bodies may face scrutiny under EU competition law, with allegations of a ‘dominant—if not monopolistic—position’ in ticket sales
Ten years after Brexit, UK and EU trade mark regimes are drifting apart in practice if not principle. Writing in NLJ this week, Roger Lush and Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford highlight tighter UK scrutiny after SkyKick, where overly broad filings may signal ‘bad faith’
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
back-to-top-scroll