M (A Child), Re

M (A Child), Re

A section 91(14) order should not be made to restrict applications which are not open to the applicant under the Children Act 1989; such an order is inappropriate and may create confusion about the court's powers.

Parties
Appellant/mother: MG; Respondent/local Authority: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Family/child Care / Appeal From Principal Registry of the Family Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Special Educational Needs, Jurisdictional Limits, SENDIST Appeals
Family Law Child Law Education Law Care Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Special Educational Needs Jurisdictional Limits SENDIST Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MG

Appellant/mother

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Respondent/local Authority

Procedural Posture

Family/child Care / Appeal From Principal Registry of the Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the family court could properly make a section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order restricting applications for educational assessments in circumstances where such applications are not open to the mother under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

A section 91(14) order should not be made to restrict applications which are not open to the applicant under the Children Act 1989; such an order is inappropriate and may create confusion about the court's powers.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 6 of the order of 20 April 2007 set aside
  • Permission to appeal granted