This was an appeal under section 21 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 against a decision of an Additional Support Needs Tribunal dated 16 January 2008 confirming a decision of the respondents dated 8 October 2007 that WA did not require a Co-ordinated Support Plan. On 8 October, the respondents wrote to the appellant and stated:- "The Educational Authority considered whether a Co-ordinated Support Plan was required.It was agreed at this meeting that WA did ha ...
|
Mr Justice Munby gives public warning in this judgment to both solicitors and barristers that a failure to comply with the Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court)[2006] 2 FLR 1999 may result in a public 'naming and shaming'.
|
Judgement given in respect of care proceedings relating to a child whose older sibling had suffered non-accidental injuries in the care of the parents. It was held that the court did not have sufficient understanding of why the Mother acted as she did in injuring the older sibling to be satisfied that the child would be safe in her mother's care.
|
Munby J gives a summary of the case law in relation to McKenzie friends exercising a right of audience before holding that it is not correct that an order allowing this can only be made in exceptional circumstances. Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839 followed.
|
The court ordered the return of two children to Poland (for a second time) after finding that the Father had not established a case under Article 12 and 13. The issue of the children's settlement was considered at length in the context of the Father's deceit of the Mother and the Polish Courts.
|
The Appellant brought an appeal under Section 51(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) against a decision of the Children’s Hearing making a supervision requirement in respect of the Appellant’s son, in terms of which the Appellant was to have no contact with his son. Shortly before the Hearing, an interim contact order had been made in the Appellant’s favour. That order was made in a Sheriff Court action brought by ...
|
This appeal concerns the right to marry protected by art.12 of the ECHR, one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by the Human Rights Act 1998. More specifically, the appeal concerns the control of that right by the Secretary of State under and pursuant to s.19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The agreed issue is whether the scheme established by and under s.19 involves a disproportionate interference with (and therefore a breach of) the art.12 r ...
|
Debate:- In this action the question at debate was when did the pursuer and defender stop cohabiting? The parties separated at some point in 2006. They had a child who was born in 1997. The pursuer contended that they separated in June, the defender, April. The date of separation was important to the pursuer's action because if the parties were co-habiting after 4 May 2006 the pursuer's claim on the defender would be restricted by virtue of the operation of Section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland ...
|
The CA held that when a court is conducting a fact-finding hearing in family proceedings involving serious allegations og domestic violence it was not appropriate to accept a submission of no case to answer. A retrial was ordered in the instant case.
|
The Pursuer and the Defender have a child, GM. When they separated, The Defender obtained full parental responsibilities and rights in relation to GM. The Defender decided that she would move to Spain to live permanently, taking GM with her. The Pursuer raised proceedings for inter alia interdict. The Defender craved a specific issue order under Section 11 (2) (e) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1985 allowing her to move GM from the UK to live permanently in Spain. She was ordained to l ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |