E (a child), Re

E (a child), Re

Permission to appeal is refused because the applicant had fair opportunity to respond to criticisms, did not raise procedural unfairness below, and the grounds raised either lack merit, are out of time, or are not properly before the court. There was no violation of Article 8 or procedural unfairness justifying interference with the judge's decision to publish the applicant's name.

Parties
Applicant/interested Party: Aimee Dover; 1st Respondent: The Father; 2nd Respondent: The Mother; 3rd Respondent: E, a child (by his Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children Act 1989) / Permission to Appeal and Related Applications
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; all applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Children Act 1989, Anonymity in Judgments, Procedural Fairness, Article 8 ECHR, Publication of Judgments
Family Law Human Rights Children Act 1989 Anonymity in Judgments Procedural Fairness Article 8 ECHR Publication of Judgments

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aimee Dover

Applicant/interested Party

The Father

1st Respondent

The Mother

2nd Respondent

E, a child (by his Children’s Guardian)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children Act 1989) / Permission to Appeal and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in publishing findings about the applicant without anonymisation
  2. 2 Whether the findings against the applicant were unfairly made
  3. 3 Whether publication would violate Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because the applicant had fair opportunity to respond to criticisms, did not raise procedural unfairness below, and the grounds raised either lack merit, are out of time, or are not properly before the court. There was no violation of Article 8 or procedural unfairness justifying interference with the judge's decision to publish the applicant's name.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; all applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Reporting restriction order discharged
  • Judgment may be cited