header-logo header-logo

28 November 2025
Issue: 8141 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 28 November 2025

Care proceedings

Re C (Children: Premature Determination) [2025] EWCA Civ 1481

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the local authority and Children’s Guardian against a judge’s decision to stay care proceedings pending an appeal. The court found that the judge had predetermined a key issue in the case by expressing a settled view that he could not approve adoption for one of the children before hearing all the evidence. This amounted to a serious procedural irregularity causing injustice under CPR 52.21(3)(b). The judge’s intervention went beyond permissible judicial indication and demonstrated a closed mind, making a fair trial impossible. The court determined that the judge’s refusal to hear evidence from the Children’s Guardian was ‘unaccountable’ and procedurally unfair. Accordingly, the proceedings were remitted to the Central Family Court for determination by another judge to avoid further delay for children who had already been awaiting decisions for over two years.


Conflict of laws

Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime Sia and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1472

The

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll