header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

Re S (a child) (adoption: special guardianship) [2007] EWCA Civ 54, [2007] All ER (D) 81 (Feb)

(i) A special guardianship order is only appropriate if it is best fitted to meet the needs of the child concerned. The key question which the court is obliged to ask itself in every case in which the question of adoption, as opposed to special guardianship, arises is “which order will better serve the welfare of this particular child?” It is incumbent on judges to give full reasons and to explain their decisions with care.

Provided the judge has carefully
examined the facts, made appropriate findings in relation to them and applied the welfare check-lists contained in the Children Act 1989, s 1(3) and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 1, it is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will be able properly to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in a finely balanced case.

(ii) The court has power to make a special guardianship order of its own motion, where the welfare of the child is in issue in any family proceedings. The statute implicitly envisages an order being made against the wishes of the parties, and in a case in which the party seeking a different order eg adoption does not want to be appointed the child’s special guardian. Note that Re J [2007] EWCA Crim 55, contains a helpful Schedule of Main Differences between Special Guardianship Orders and Adoption which sets out the differences between the two orders in tabular form.

Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll