The resemblance to Mr Justice Sumner's guidance and resumé of
previous authorities on this issue within Braybrook v Basildon & Thurrock University NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 3352 (QB), [2005] All ER (D) 320 (Apr) is intentional (see box on left).
Not exact matches
His government, and
previous ones, didn't see the need then, and the need now owes less to the fact that the climate is changing, and much, much more to the fact that individuals in the Government want to use the climate change
issue to generate moral
authority for themselves, especially
on the world stage.
If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all
previous cases (called a «matter of first impression»), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous
on the question, judges have the
authority and duty to resolve the
issue (one party or the other has to win, and
on disagreements of law, judges make that decision).5 The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants.
On the legal custody
issue, the Court of Appeals agreed with my client that the family court erred in finding he did not have final decision - making
authority under the
previous order, finding that the old order «implicitly granted him final decision - making
authority by virtue of granting him primary legal custody.»
In coming to this conclusion Madam Justice Fenlon referred to and summarized 2
previous authorities dealing with this
issue at paragraphs 8 - 13 and went
on to hold as follows: