header-logo header-logo

20 September 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

Re P (a child) (adoption order: leave to oppose making of adoption order) [2007] EWCA Civ 616, [2007] All ER (D) 334 (Jun)

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002), ss 1(1) and (7), apply only to decisions under ACA 2002 and do not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances, including decisions about granting leave in proceedings under the Children Act 1989.

An application for leave to defend adoption proceedings under ACA 2002, s 47(5) involves a two-stage process: (i) the court has to be satisfied, on the facts of the case, that there has been a change in circumstances within s 47(7), and if there has been no change in circumstances, the application must fail; (ii) if there has been a change in circumstances, the court has a discretion to permit the parents to defend the adoption proceedings. 

The decision whether or not to grant leave is governed by ACA 2002, s 1, and the paramount consideration for the court must be the child’s welfare throughout his life. When deciding either limb, the judge has a discretion whether or not to hear oral evidence.

It is not necessary for the judge to conduct a full welfare hearing unless the issues which arise for decision positively require one, or require oral evidence in one or more particular respects.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll