The article includes a short explanation of the important features and case law in the two decisions in Re A and L  EWCA Civ 1205 and 1611. The decisions summarise how the Court of Appeal will treat judges' ex tempore decisions where important topics have not been spelt out.
The article outlines some uncomfortable questions which arise from the two decisions:
Is it the Court of Appeal's ability to understand the reasons in the judgment which matters or is it that of the parties?
If parties do not understand because of gaps in the judgment does this matter?
What is the significance of the appellate assumption about what judges know and think?
Does the length of the judge's experience (however long or short) help with an understanding of the judgment?
Is there any precise minimum content which must appear in any judgment?
Are litigants in person in person required to accept the adequacy of ex tempore reasons?