header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 September 2013
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Paternity—DNA testing—Jurisdiction

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Re M (a child) (Paternity: DNA testing) [2013] EWCA Civ 1131; [2013] All ER (D) 148 (Sep)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Longmore, Underhill and Macur LJJ, 17 Sep 2013

DNA testing to establish paternity should not be ordered unless it is necessary for it to be done before a conclusion can be reached. It is best carried out in a welfare context and by the court of the child’s habitual residence.

Mark Jarman for the father. Robin Powell for the mother.

The proceedings concerned a child, L, born in 2008. The parents were Latvian nationals. Following their separation, the father had regular contact with L, and L resided with the father for a period while the mother worked abroad. In 2012, difficulties arose about the father continuing to have contact with L, resulting in the father issuing proceedings in Latvia. An agreement reached between the parents was recorded in an order of the Latvian court, which recorded that the father’s claim had been pursued to establish a procedure for exercising rights “with the daughter”.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll