[2015] AC 1787
, para 52, “subject to being overruled by a higher court or (given Parliamentary supremacy) a statute, it is a basic principle that a decision of a court is binding as between the parties, and cannot be ignored or set aside by anyone, including (indeed it may fairly be said, least of all) the executive”. This principle was described (ibid) as “fundamental to the rule of law”. Thirdly, as the Lord Chancellor made clear in Chuck v Cremer, the rule applies to orders which are “null”, as well as to orders which are merely irregular. Notwithstanding the paradox involved in this use of language, a court order which is “null” must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside.”25.Placement orders or adoption orders that have been made, but have not been set aside or varied by the court, are therefore valid and do not require further validation by a declaration or other means.
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- Summary of conclusion
- The Legal Context
- “Requirement to obtain information about the child
- MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CHILD'S HEALTH REPORT
- “21 Placement orders
- Dismissal of FPR 2010, Part 18 applications
- The validity of a placement order or an adoption order
- [2015] AC 1787
- Are existing placement or adoption orders vulnerable to challenge?
- On what basis may a placement order be set aside or revoked?
- [2008] EWCA 835
- I have reached the conclusion that the Recorder was wrong for the simple reason that
- Re P-B
- accurately states the law
- On what basis may an adoption order be set aside or revoked?
- “Is it open to this court in 2009 to set aside the adoption orders?
- simply make it impossible for this court to set aside the adoption orders even if, as Mr and Mrs Webster argue, they have suffered a serious injustice
- FPR 2010, Part 18
- Conclusion
- What needs to happen now?
