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
The judge erred by overlaying the necessity test with concepts of rarity and failing to properly consider the mother's vulnerabilities and the evidence, resulting in procedural unfairness. The necessity test under Part 3A FPR required intermediary assistance for the mother to ensure a fair hearing.
Source excerpt
M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440 (10 April 2025)
Court of Appeal allowed a mother’s appeal against refusal of an intermediary in care proceedings, holding that necessity—not rarity—governs appointment.
Brittain v Choppen [2025] EWHC 476 (Ch) (03 March 2025)
The High Court adjourned a trial in a liquidator’s claim against a former director, holding that last-minute representation issues and party vulnerability would make the hearing unfair.
The High Court adjourned a February 2025 trial so the respondent’s new counsel could prepare, taking account of his vulnerabilities, literacy issues and the case’s complexity.
CXC v Clarke & Anor [2024] EWHC 3138 (KB) (05 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a claimant’s request for permission to instruct an intermediary, holding the application was premature because relevant vulnerability was not yet established.
The application for an intermediary assessment was not supported by sufficient evidence of necessity. The correct procedure was not followed, and there was no clear evidential basis demonstrating that the Mother could not participate fairly without an intermediary. The application was therefore adjourned to allow for further evidence to be provided if necessary.
Source excerpt
The Family Court refused a mother’s application to reopen care and placement findings, holding the fresh intermediary evidence was speculative and would not change the outcome.
N v D [2024] EWFC 309 (30 October 2024)
The Family Court refused a mother's application to stay proceedings on a father's parental responsibility and contact claims, joined the child as a party, and adjourned a s.37 issue.
Interpreter’s fees reasonably incurred to enable a vulnerable party to participate fully and give best evidence are recoverable as a disbursement under CPR 45.29I(h), as this interpretation accords with the overriding objective and is not precluded by Cham, which is distinguishable.
Source excerpt
The evidence, including expert psychological assessments, did not establish that the mother’s cognitive or communication difficulties were so significant as to require an intermediary. Her legal team, using appropriate adaptations and guidance, could ensure her fair participation. An intermediary was not necessary.
Source excerpt
Explore more
