- Cited — E (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders) 2023-06-27
“…owing on from YC and other cases in the European Court, the Supreme Court addressed the exceptionality of a plan for adoption in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911. At paragraph 104, Lord Neuberger said:…”
- Cited — T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) 2023-05-05
“…c Electronics Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23, [2007] 1 WLR 1325; Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Su…”
- Cited — Re C (Surrogacy: Consent) 2023-01-16
“…cessity/proportionality of the original decision but will not make its own evaluation: In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 at paras. 36, 83-90 and 136; In the matter of H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 17, [2022] 2 FLR 533 at para. 48. However, that approach is not apt in a case w…”
- Cited — Hollie Dance & Anor. v Barts Health NHS Trust & Anor. 2022-07-25
“…his judge did, an appellate court can only interfere with his decision if satisfied that it was wrong: In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911. In a case as sensitive and difficult as this, whichever way the judge’s decision goes, an appellate court should be very slow to conclude that he was wrong.”…”
- Cited — TT (Children) 2021-05-20
“…order: In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911 at paragraphs 62, 73 and 194. A proper application of the welfare test will normally produce an outcome that is compatible with Convention rights, by having pa…”
- Cited — Sastry & Anor v General Medical Council 2021-04-30
“… there is limited scope for an appellate court to overturn such a decision. At [64] the Court of Appeal quoted Lord Clarke in Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings) [2013] 1 WLR 1911, [137]:…”
- Applied — H, Re (Children: Findings of Fact) 2021-03-05
“…In Re B (a child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911, the Supreme Court adopted these observations as applying, in the words of Lord Wilson JSC at [42], “all the more strongly to an appeal against a decision abou…”
- Cited — Haley v Haley 2020-10-23
“…ppeal is whether the decision of the lower court is “wrong” as opposed to “plainly wrong” (Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33,[2013] 1 WLR 1911 at [46]; see also Prescott v Potamianos (also known as Re Sprintroom Ltd) [2019] EWCA Civ 932 at [72] – [78]);…”
- Applied — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“…e adopted to such findings as applied to other findings of primary fact. That approach has been authoritatively set out in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013]UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and other cases. As Lord Hodge expressed it in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [67]:…”
- Cited — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“…(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and in particular on what Lord Wilson and Lord Neuberger said about an appeal court’s approach to a decision on the threshold issue for a care order under sect…”
- Cited — M (A Child) 2020-07-17
“…hasis). This mirrors, although also in a different context, the approach taken by the Supreme Court in In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911 to the word necessary when analysing the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights (and when, I note…”
- Explained — C (A Child : Interim Separation) 2020-02-26
“…is perverse, this court will not interfere. Why this is so was explained by Lord Wilson in Re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911, [2013] 2 FLR 1075. In discussing appeals from decisions made in care proceedings, he said this at [42]:…”
- Cited — AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2020-01-29
“… more than one occasion. The first relevant authority that was drawn to our attention was Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911, at paras. 88-93 (Lord Neuberger PSC). The most recent consideration of the issue which we were shown was in R (R) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Poli…”
- Cited — Simawi v London Borough of Haringey 2019-10-31
“… court is no different; at all events where the challenge is based on proportionality: In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 at [36] (Lord Wilson); [83] – [90] Lord Neuberger; [137] – [139] (Lord Clarke).…”
- Followed — R-B (A Child) 2019-07-02
“…CA Civ 1146; [2014] 1 WLR 563. That line of authorities followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Re B (Care Proceedings: Special Criteria) [2013] UKSC 37; [2013] 1 WLR 1911, which had stressed, in the light of the court's duty to evaluate proportionality, that non-consensual adoption should only be approved by courts where no othe…”
- Considered — Z & Aanor, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Hackney & Anor 2019-06-27
“…In Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911, the Supreme Court considered the role of an appeal court in an appeal which involves…”
- Considered — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“…The matter was extensively considered by the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911. The Court of Appeal sought to draw some threads together, from that case and others, in IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd. v Dalgleish [2018] ICR 1681, at 1764-…”
- Cited — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“…reasonable judge could have reached. We invited the parties’ attention, in addition to these cases, to In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911.…”
- Cited — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“…ec Electronics Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23 [2007] 1 WLR 1325; Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Su…”
- Cited — Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations), Re 2019-02-21
“…l judges, unless compelled to do so – see for example Piglowska v Piglowski[1999] 1 WLR 1360,ReB (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria)[2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911, and Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UL Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5. In the last-named case, Lewison LJ reiterated (at paragraph 114) that this extends “not only to findings o…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“…ec Electronics Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23 [2007] 1 WLR 1325; Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Su…”
- Cited — The British Council v Jeffery & Ors 2018-10-16
“…[2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911, esp…”
- Followed — Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council & Ors 2018-08-13
“…In Bowen and Stanton,McCombe LJ went on (at [67]) to quote from Lord Clarke’s judgment in Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911 at [137] as follows:…”
- Cited — S (A Child), Re 2018-08-08
“…ions in 2015, and therefore after the judgments had been reported in the well-known cases of Re: B (A Child)Care Proceedings Threshold Criteria [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and Re: BS Children Adoption Order Leave To Oppose [2010] EWCA Civ 1146; [2014] 1 WLR 563:…”
- Cited — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Robinson (Jamaica) 2018-02-02
“…is called for. He made that submission on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Re B (Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911, relying in particular on what was said at para. 88 in the judgment given by Lord Neuberger PSC.…”