- Cited — Y & Anor (1996 Hague Convention: Article 11), Re 2023-07-12
“… the risk of unintentional harm. Mr Nuvoloni cited the observations of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC in Re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17, [2010] 1 AC 678, [2010] 1 FLR 1161 (citing Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, [1996] 2 WLR 8, [1996] 1 FLR 80 that:…”
- Cited — A, B & C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea) 2023-04-26
“…[2009] UKSC 17, and…”
- Cited — Re H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm) 2023-02-02
“…[2009] UKSC 17, [2010] 1 AC 678.…”
- Cited — RE A (CHILDREN) (POOL OF PERPETRATORS) 2022-10-17
“…[2009] UKSC 17…”
- Cited — M (Children) v Wiltshire Council & Ors 2020-12-18
“…Re S-B (Children) [2009] UKSC 17;…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…ities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies.” In S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17,[2010] 1 AC 678, Lady Hale, giving the judgment of the court, said at [13] that the court in Re B had rejected “the nostrum, ‘the more serious the allegation, …”
- Cited — D (Fact-finding appeal) 2019-12-20
“…In support of his approach in the present case, Judge Baker referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Re S-B[2009] UKSC 17. The passage he cited (from the judgment of Baroness Hale of Richmond giving the judgment of the court) is in fact a quotation from Lady Hale’s earlier judgmen…”
- Approved — B (Children : Uncertain Perpetrator) (Rev 1) 2019-04-04
“… “likelihood or real possibility” test suggested in Re O and N and adopted in North Yorkshire was decisively approved by the Supreme Court in Re S-B (Children) [2009] UKSC 17, a case where injuries must have been caused by one parent or the other. Baroness Hale, describing it as, colloquially, a pure “whodunnit”, said this:…”
- Cited — R (Children) 2018-02-16
“…ions were reasonable or not in relation to the circumstances of the death itself, I would refer to para 35 of the judgment of the Supreme court in S-B Children [2009] UKSC 17, where the court pointed out there is no obligation to identify a perpetrator:…”