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.
Mr Ian Wise (instructed by Scott-Moncrieff Harbour & Sinclair) for the claimant (child) Mr Jon Holbrook (instructed by Sternberg Reed Taylor & Gill) for the defendant (local authority) ____________________
Having inquired why R (J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin) , [2005] 2 FLR 860 , had been included in the bundle "bearing in mind there is no reference to this authority in your grounds", they continued:
i) The Administrative Court becomes an arena in which a judge is asked to determine the best interests of the child. This, he says, is not the court's function.
ii) Clearly formulated and succinct grounds for a public law challenge give way to a narrative. He tartly, but not without some justification, drew attention to the fact that the amended grounds spanned 17 pages and 47 paragraphs and complained that even if it was possible to discern particular grounds of challenge they were buried in a mass of narrative.
iii) Witness statements proliferate. In this case, as he pointed out, four witness statements in support of B's case had been filed in little over a month.
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.