The First Appellant, M, is the mother of six children including C, D, E, and F. Following longstanding concerns related to both sexual abuse by their elder brother A and neglect, in March 2020 the local authority issued proceedings seeking to take C, D, and E into its care and place them in three separate foster homes. It also sought that M’s newly born child F (daughter of the Second Appellant F3) be removed for adoption.
Following two hearings, Judge McPhee found that E had been sexually assaulted by her brother, A, and that M and F3 had both failed to protect the children from sexual abuse and delayed reporting the assault. Judge McPhee ultimately concluded that it would not be safe for C, D, and E to remain in the care of M and F3 and therefore made the care orders sought. A final decision in respect of F was postponed.
The First Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which by a two to one majority decision dismissed the appeal.

The First Appellant, M, is the mother of six children including C, D, E, and F. Following longstanding concerns related to both sexual abuse by their elder brother A and neglect, in March 2020 the local authority issued proceedings seeking to take C, D, and E into its care and place them in three separate foster homes. It also sought that M’s newly born child F (daughter of the Second Appellant F3) be removed for adoption.
Following two hearings, Judge McPhee found that E had been sexually assaulted by her brother, A, and that M and F3 had both failed to protect the children from sexual abuse and delayed reporting the assault. Judge McPhee ultimately concluded that it would not be safe for C, D, and E to remain in the care of M and F3 and therefore made the care orders sought. A final decision in respect of F was postponed.
The First Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which by a two to one majority decision dismissed the appeal.

AIC has held an arbitral award against FAAN for over USD 48 million since 2010. FAAN’s challenge to that award is pending before the Nigerian Supreme Court. AIC applied to the English courts for permission to enforce the award without notice to FAAN and obtained a preliminary order in its favour. On FAAN’s subsequent application, the judge set aside the preliminary order and adjourned AIC’s application to enforce the award on the condition that FAAN provide security for approximately USD 24 million by a certain date. When that deadline and further extended deadlines were not met, the judge made an order granting AIC permission to enforce the award. Before that order could be sealed and perfected, FAAN’s efforts to provide the security culminated in the issue of a bank guarantee and it applied to the judge for reconsideration of her order, which had not yet been sealed. The judge allowed FAAN’s application, rescinded AIC’s right to enforce the award and granted FAAN relief from sanctions. The Court of Appeal allowed AIC’s appeal and reinstated the order, allowing it to enforce the award.
FAAN now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and requests a stay of the execution of the Court of Appeal’s order pending the disposal of this application and, if permission is granted, its appeal.