The CA dismissed the appeal of a 15 year old boy who had sought to give oral evidence as to the strength of his desire to return to his mother’s care at the final hearing of care proceedings concerning himself and his younger sibling. The Judge had seen the child earlier in the proceedings and had given an impeccable judgment setting out why the risks of harm to him from giving oral evidence outweighed any benefits of this given hat his strong feelings were well known and he was separately represented.
In long running litigation arising out of an AR claim the CA dismissed the husband’s appeal against the dismissal of an application to make a final charging order in favour of his business associate Mr Chesnokov in respect of a property which represented the only significant asset in this jurisdiction available to (very partially) satisfy the Wife’s award.
The CA dismissed applications for wasted costs orders against solicitors representing parents in care proceedings.
The CA considered the circumstances in which it was permissible for a judge to make an interim care order at a without notice hearing and the judge’s use of the s.37 jurisdiction to do so. In the circumstances of the case the judge’s actions were permissible given that an on notice hearing followed immediately after the without notice hearing and the court’s actions were entirely consistent with the child’s welfare. While other procedural routes could have been taken this did not make s.37 impermissible.
The Supreme Court held that a Judge had a discretion to reconsider her judgment up to the time the order was perfected. The Supreme Court did not place limitations on this discretion holding that the overriding objective must be to deal with cases justly. The issue of whether in care proceedings the sealing of a final care order would prevent reconsideration was discussed but no decision made as it was not relevant to the instant case and had not been argued before the court.