Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Our latest thinking on key legal industry developments
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Greg Davies, barrister at 4PB (who represented the children in Re Z), looks at the implications of the decision in W and Re Z (EU Settled Status for Looked After Children)  EWHC 783 (Fam) as to important questions of law and procedure concerning children’s immigration status under the UK’s European Union Settlement Scheme (EUSS). Specifically, in W and Re Z , the court provided clear and comprehensive guidance for all local authorities in respect of looked after children, care leavers and children in need.
Two cases (W and Re Z) came before the court sequentially to consider applications under the inherent jurisdiction for the issuing of Polish passports and settled status for the subject children. In the first case, the mother’s consent to the applications was predicated on the children being returned to her care. The father opposed. In the second case, neither parent engaged save to state their unreasoned opposition to the applications.
The court addressed the following urgent questions:
In relation to parental responsibility and consent, the court undertook a review of the relevant law and guidance, in particular:
The court carefully considered the line of Court of Appeal authority concerning the proper exercise of parental responsibility by a local authority. The court was satisfied that, ordinarily, it will not be the case that the consequences of a local authority overriding the wishes or views of a parent to acquire passports or settled status for children are so profound or enduring that it would be wrong to exercise the statutory power conferred by ChA 1989, s 33(3) or ACA 2002, s 25.
The court acknowledged there may be some limited cases that require an application under the inherent jurisdiction but this should not be the first port of call in such situations.
In their submissions in the Re Z case, counsel for the children (myself, led by Henry Setright QC) suggested that there could be a cohort of children who may meet the threshold for proceedings under ChA 1989, Pt IV. While not speculating in that regard, the court noted that the submissions served to highlight the need for local authorities to remain alive, when discharging their obligations to looked after children for whom they do not share parental responsibility, care leavers and children in need, to the possibility of cases that may, exceptionally require the intervention of the court.
The court’s guidance
MacDonald J summarised the court’s guidance (at para ) as follows:
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234