header-logo header-logo

Taking care

18 October 2013 / David Burrows
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
istock_000004854491medium

David Burrows reviews the bases for appeal in care proceedings

The Supreme Court has recently looked at the bases for considering whether an appeal should be allowed in care proceedings. In so doing they have looked at the meaning of “wrong” where a decision may be said to be “more than to exercise a discretion”; and at the extent to which an appellate court should reconsider the decision below where it engages an issue concerning the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), in this case Art 8 (right to respect for family and private life).

The basis on which an appeal is allowed in civil proceedings is by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) r 52.11(3): “(3) The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was—(a) wrong; or (b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

The hearing of any appeal is a review of the decision from a lower court, unless the court considers that 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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll