header-logo header-logo

11 March 2010 / David Burrows
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

An unhappy witness?

Should children be asked to give evidence in family proceedings? David Burrows investigates

In W (Children) [2010] UKSC 12, Lady Hale considers the factors for consideration by a judge when the court is called upon to exercise a discretion as to whether a child may be called to give evidence. This judgment continues a run of decisions by her in which she defines evidential and case management principles around children in family proceedings. A decision from relatively early in her judicial career —Re B (Children Act Proceedings) (Issue Estoppel) [1997] 1 FLR 285, [1997] 2 All ER 29—recently had the dubious accolade of being cited by the Upper Tribunal ([2009] UKUT Chadwick LJ as senior president and Upper Tribunal Judge Jacob) as providing a criterion for deciding whether issue estoppel applied as between matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings and child support First-tier Tribunal proceedings. (Answer: to a limited degree only.) In the ground-breaking judgment she re-evaluated and enunciated modern principles on which burden and standard of proof should be regarded in family proceedings.

Her background

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll