header-logo header-logo

30 May 2014
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Re B (a child) (care proceedings: appellate judge’s power to remake decision) [2014] EWCA Civ 565, [2014] All ER (D) 88 (May)

On an appellate review, the judge’s first task was to identify the error of fact, value judgment or law sufficient to permit the appellate court to interfere. There was always a value judgment to be performed which was the comparative welfare analysis and the proportionality evaluation of the interference that the proposed order represented and accordingly there was a review to be undertaken about whether that judgment was right or wrong. Armed with the error identified, the judge then had a discretionary decision to make whether to re-make the decision complained of or remit the proceedings for a re-hearing. The judge had the power to fill gaps in the reasoning of the first court and give additional reasons in the same way that was permitted to an appeal court when a respondent’s notice had been filed. In the exercise of its discretion, the court had to keep firmly in mind the procedural protections provided by the Rules and Practice Directions of both the appeal court

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll