S (Children)

S (Children)

The judge did not exceed his discretion in refusing to adjourn the proceedings, as the local authority had considered the judgment and further adjournment would not have changed their position. There was no procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant material.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: S (Children) (by their Guardian); First Respondent: Hampshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Judicial Discretion, Local Authority Duties
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Supervision Orders Judicial Discretion Local Authority Duties

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S (Children) (by their Guardian)

Applicant

Hampshire County Council

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to adjourn proceedings to allow the local authority to reconsider its care plan for the children
  2. 2 Whether the local authority properly considered the judge's judgment and the views of the guardian and expert witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not exceed his discretion in refusing to adjourn the proceedings, as the local authority had considered the judgment and further adjournment would not have changed their position. There was no procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant material.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused