Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Leave to Oppose)
[2010] EWCA Civ 1535 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
What happened: An adoption order had been made without the birth mother receiving proper notice. A judge set that order aside and allowed her to oppose the adoption application. The prospective adopters appealed against the decision allowing her to oppose it. The case therefore involved both a defect in the original process and the separate question of what should happen when the adoption application was considered again.
What the court decided: The Court of Appeal accepted that the defective original order had to be set aside. However, it overturned the permission given to the mother to oppose the fresh application and made an adoption order again. Correcting the procedural failure did not change the eventual adoption outcome.
Why it matters to adoptees: This is a useful example of why 'the adoption was set aside' can be an incomplete account. A family member's right to be properly notified matters, but a fresh hearing can still lead to adoption. For adoptees examining their history, it helps separate whether the process was fair from whether the final outcome changed. The case does not establish a general power to undo a valid adoption because family circumstances later change.
Considered in a later judgment
X and Y (2026), paragraphs 87–88, rejects this as a reliable basis for inherent revocation powers.
Limitations: The appeal concerned leave to oppose a fresh adoption. Do not turn the procedural history into a general revocation power.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: No direct adoptee position established
Remedy sought: Set aside procedurally defective order; leave to oppose renewed adoption
Legal route: County-court set-aside + appeal on leave to oppose
Judgments in this case
- [2010] EWCA Civ 1535 · Court of Appeal · 2010-11-24 · Appeal
Sources checked
- X and Y (2026): judgment and discussion of earlier cases (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 87–88 · Later judgment
Review scope: Existing database extraction checked against the discussion in X and Y (2026). Original judgment not freshly reviewed; later treatment check is limited to the linked judgments.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-0004.