U (Children)

U (Children)

The judge conducted the appropriate balancing exercise between delay and prejudice, properly considered the father's case at its highest, and was entitled to refuse the adjournment and rehearing as there were no solid grounds to revisit the findings; the decision was not wrong and within the discretion of the first instance judge.

Parties
Appellant: KU; Mother/3rd Respondent: VU; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Lewisham; Child: AU; Child: BU; Child: CU; Child: DU; Child: ZU; Witness: Raj; Witness: Miss Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Adjournment, Rehearing, Case Management, Child Welfare, Placement Orders, Review of Findings
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Adjournment Rehearing Case Management Child Welfare Placement Orders +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KU

Appellant

VU

Mother/3rd Respondent

London Borough of Lewisham

1st Respondent

AU

Child

BU

Child

CU

Child

DU

Child

ZU

Child

Raj

Witness

Miss Y

Witness

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment of the father's application for a rehearing of care proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there were solid grounds to revisit findings of sexual abuse and other abuse in care proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge conducted the appropriate balancing exercise between delay and prejudice, properly considered the father's case at its highest, and was entitled to refuse the adjournment and rehearing as there were no solid grounds to revisit the findings; the decision was not wrong and within the discretion of the first instance judge.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed