Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
RECORDER SAMUELS QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) (In Private) BETWEEN: ____________________
Mr A. NEAVES (instructed by Birmingham City Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Miss K. BROWN (instructed by HRS Family Solicitors) appeared on behalf of W. Mr W. HORWOOD (instructed by Anthony Collins Solicitors) appeared on behalf of Q. Miss S. TIERNEY (instructed by McDonald Kerrigan LLP) appeared on behalf of the children. Hearing dates: 8 to 12 July, 15 to 17 July, ____________________
(1) Threshold was not agreed. The mother wished to amend and supplement her previous threshold responses. The LA then wished to amend and supplement its threshold allegations. A composite schedule of allegations and responses was only produced on the 4 th day of this hearing.
(2) The LA conceded that a placement of these children in Bermuda under the wardship jurisdiction would most probably be against the case law authorities and would certainly be impractical.
(3) The LA conceded that there was no valid special guardianship report, needs assessment or support plan.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.