[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> O (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1347 (31 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1347.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1347

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE GUILDFORD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRY AND HIS HONOUR JUDGE BISHOP)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Wednesday 31 July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mr O seeks permission to appeal orders made as long ago as 29 September 1998 in the Guildford County Court. Before the court was an application for the discharge of a care order in relation to J. The application was refused by His Honour Judge Parry. Now, nearly four years later, J remains the subject of a care order to Surrey County Council. He was placed in a specialist placement and has not had either direct or indirect contact with his parents for some years.
2. Mr O also challenges an order made on 24 August 2001 by His Honour Judge Bishop. On that day the judge considered Mr O's application to discharge injunction orders. There were curious proceedings in which Mr O seemingly agreed with counsel briefed on behalf of the local authority that the injunctions should continue in place. Accordingly, his application for relief was dismissed by consent. Subsequently Mr O apparently asserted that it was a term of the compromise that his claim for damages against the local authority should be settled in the sum of over £2 million. Of course, that had not been counsel's perception of the basis of compromise. Indeed, counsel had not heard anything of the damages claim or its settlement until after the dismissal by consent. Accordingly, counsel returned before the judge who heard representations both from Mr O and from counsel at the end of which the judge ruled that he would not revisit the order dismissing the application for relief.
3. Given that brief recital, it is no surprise to me that Mr O has not appeared this morning to pursue his application. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in saying that his applications should be dismissed and should not be relisted.
Order: Applications refused.