Re C (a minor); FD (Douglas Brown J); 13 June 1995
Magistrates hearing a local authority's application for a care order, where it was agreed between the parties that the threshold conditions of s 31 of the Children Act 1989 had been met, should nevertheless have made findings of fact as to what underlay the s 31 conditions. The complete absence of any findings was unhelpful and contrary to current practice.
Adrian Jenkala (John D. Sellars & Co, Sutton) for the mother; Richard Mandel (Ouvry Goodman, Sutton) for the father; Pamela Radcliffe (Sutton Borough Council solicitor) for the council; Jane Carpenter (Carpenter & Co, Wallington) for the guardian ad litem.
Marya v Marya; CA (Balcombe, Peter Gibson, Hutchison LJJ); 11 July 1995
An appeal against the grant of a decree nisi of divorce by a district judge lay to the county court judge and not to the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, where an application was made to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal such a decree, the court had no option but to dismiss the application.
The parties did not appear and were not represented.
Re S (no 2): hospital patient: jurisdiction; FD(Hale J); 11 July 1995
S, an elderly Norwegian national, incapacitated by a severe stroke, was the subject of proceedings for a declaration as to whether it was in his best interests to be cared for in England or Norway. The jurisdiction of the English court, based on S's presence here, to decide on the legality of any proposed action in relation to his care, was not displaced by the appointment of a Norwegian guardian, even if in English law S was domiciled in Norway.
Witold Pawlak (Billson & Sharp, Leicester) for S's wife and son; Huw Lloyd (Payne Hicks Beach) for the plaintiff; Nicholas O'Brien(Official Solicitor) for the Official Solicitor; Daphne Romney (Sinclair Roche Temperley) for the Norwegian guardian.Reuse content