header-logo header-logo

05 May 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Family
printer mail-detail

Remote justice poses painful dilemmas

Judges must be ‘hard-headed’ when deciding which cases to prioritise for remote hearings and which can wait, the senior family judge has said

Giving judgment in the second welfare of children case to be appealed on the issue of remote hearings since the lockdown began, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said judges must ‘be alert to ensure that the dynamics and demands of the remote process do not impinge on the fundamental principles… experience shows that remote hearings place additional, and in some cases, considerable burdens on the participants’.

The case, B (Children) (Remote hearing: interim care order) [2020] EWCA Civ 584, concerned a boy wrongly removed from his grandmother’s home and placed in foster care after a telephone hearing. Sir Andrew said the case should have been adjourned but that ‘no doubt partly because of the exigencies of the remote process, there was a loss of perspective in relation to the need for an immediate decision’. The grandmother had no opportunity to file evidence, was faced with an order she had no chance of challenging, and the boy was taken into care within an hour.  ‘It must have been utterly bewildering for them both,’ Sir Andrew said.

The previous appeal concerned an adoption case involving six children where the father did not feel confident at using technology, A (Children) (Remote hearing: care and placement orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583.

The children’s guardian contended that the eight-day hearing with multiple witnesses should go ahead remotely on the basis further delay would jeopardise the youngest children’s chances of being adopted. However, the Court of Appeal adjourned the case.

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Family
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
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