header-logo header-logo

06 August 2009
Issue: 7381 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family law

Re A (children) (care proceedings: threshold criteria) [2009] EWCA Civ 853, [2009] All ER (D) 354 (Jul)

The threshold of “significant harm”, in the context of making of care orders pursuant to s 31 of the Children Act 1989, was not comparatively low. In a case where there was a likelihood of a child suffering harm it was necessary to establish that there was a real possibility that he would suffer significant harm.

While having to show no more than a real possibility of harm made the threshold a low one, it still had to be a real possibility of significant harm. The harm had to be significant whether dealing with harm which had been suffered, or when dealing only with the likelihood of it being suffered. Therefore, the word “significant” had to be given its proper meaning in the scheme of the Act.

Issue: 7381 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll