The CA allowed an appeal against the making of Placement Orders in a case where the subject child required intensive therapy before a decision could properly be made as to whether adoption would be in her best interests.
In a case concerning the unusual situation of counsel who had acted for the Husband in financial proceedings in respect of his first wife and subsequently acted against the Husband in financial proceedings with his second wife the court allowed the second wife’s appeal against the setting aside of the ancillary relief order. Counsel are not prohibited from acting against former clients provided they do not make use of any confidential information in so doing. The situation was fully disclosed to both parties and to the court prior to the hearing taking place and the Husband gave his consent to the Counsel acting for his second wife to continue.
The CA dismissed an appeal against the making of Care and Placement Orders. It was held that although the judgment (handed down before Re: BS) was linear in structure and did not initially appear to weigh the options against each other on a closer reading it was clear that the Judge did have in mind both potential options and given his central adverse findings against the proposed family placement his decision was not wrong.
The CA dismissed the appeal of a widow against the refusal of the court to extend time for her to make an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The CA acknowledged the potential merits of her substantive claim but found that she could not justify the 6 year delay in making her application.