You are here

Filter content

Bloomsburry Family law


R (Bitcon) v West Allerdale Magistrates Court

Judicial Review - Public and Administrative Law - Claimant applied for his remand to specialist nursing home under Mental Health Act 1983, s 35 - Order made - Order subsequently revoked as local health authority would not fund stay at home - Claimant brought judicial review proceedings - Magistrates’ court correct to revoke its own order since it could not be satisfied that appropriate arrangements had been made given absence of funding

Contract Facilities Ltd v Estate Of Rees (Dec’d) [2003] EWCA Civ 1105

Civil Procedure - Appeals - Costs - Case management - Application for an order that company’s appeal be adjourned or dismissed until certain costs were paid - Court of Appeal had case management powers under CPR rr 2.1 and 3.1 in addition to powers under CPR r 52 - Court of Appeal could and would impose conditions on appeal proceedings even though respondent had unsuccessfully requested judge to impose conditions on permission to appeal - Order would not prejudge issue whether individuals funding proceedings by company should pay costs of trial under Supreme Court Act 1981, s 51

R v Parole Board, ex p Giles [2003] UKHL 42

Criminal Procedure - Human Rights - Sentencing - Defendant received sentence under Criminal Justice Act 1991, s 2(2)(b) which was longer than would be commensurate with seriousness of offences - Judge of opinion that sentence necessary to protect public - Sentence not subject to requirements of periodic review under European Convention on Human Rights 1953, Art 5(4)

Re S (A Child) [2003] EWCA Civ 963

Human Rights - Children - Family - Criminal Procedure - Identification - Child’s welfare - Judge had not correctly expressed balancing exercise to be carried out between child’s right to privacy under European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8 and right to free speech in Art 10 of Convention - However judge had been correct not to restrain identification of child’s family in criminal proceedings where publicity would not impact on child’s upbringing and paramountcy of welfare principle in Children Act 1989, s 1(1) could not be invoked