Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
SW v Nottingham City Council & Anor [2025] EWCOP 53 (T3) (19 December 2025)
Court of Protection appeal upheld the fact-finding judgment, holding the reasons were adequate and the findings on coercive and controlling behaviour were open to the judge.
The Court of Appeal allowed a family appeal, setting aside care and placement orders made at an IRH because threshold findings and reasons were inadequate.
H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993 (28 July 2025)
Court of Appeal allowed appeals against unsafe fact-finding findings in care proceedings, setting aside the key sexual abuse finding and related derivative findings.
K & G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 (18 July 2025)
Appeal in care proceedings over whether the judge gave adequate reasons on inflicted injuries, perpetrator identification, ear injury and failure to protect was dismissed.
The High Court allowed a father’s appeal against a finding of rape in Children Act proceedings, holding the trial judge had compartmentalised the evidence.
The EAT allowed Ms Kemsley’s appeal, holding that the tribunal had not properly evaluated the case because its reasons largely copied the respondent’s submissions and missed key issues.
The judge's findings as to the perpetrator of B's injuries cannot stand due to flawed reasoning, failure to consider material evidence, compartmentalised assessment, and insufficient analysis; the process of elimination used was not supported by the totality of evidence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a local authority’s appeal in a child welfare case, set aside the refusal of a placement order, and ordered a rehearing before a different judge.
M (A Child), In the Matter Of [2024] EWCA Civ 1000 (29 August 2024)
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a child welfare case, holding that the judge’s decision on placement was based on an ошибenous view of the foster carers’ position and inadequate reasoning.
The fact-finding judgment of the Deputy District Judge was fundamentally flawed due to inadequate reasoning, failure to consider key evidence, failure to address the impact of the appellant mother's status as a victim of domestic abuse, and failure to consider the respondent father's admissions in the context of a wider pattern of abusive behaviour. The welfare analysis regarding interim contact was also inadequate and failed to apply the correct legal framework. The appeal succeeds on all grounds.
Source excerpt
Explore more
