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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll