Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

CARE: (1) GW and (2) PW v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and KPW ((A Child) by his guardian) [2005] EWCA Civ 1247

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : 1-gw-and-2-pw-v-oldham-metropolitan-borough-council-and-kpw-a-child-by-his-guardian-2005-ewca-civ-1247
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 29, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88529

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ and Black J; 31 October 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 543

The local authority initiated care proceedings as it was suspected that one of the parents had caused non-accidental head injury to the baby. The judge made findings on the basis of a single expert's evidence. The father appealed against the judge's refusal of an application at trial to instruct a second expert. Thorpe LJ permitted the release of papers to a second expert who in turn expressed a clear disagreement with the first expert. In the circumstances all the parties agreed to the case being remitted to a judge of the Family Division for re-hearing. The Court of Appeal observed that it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to obtain a second opinion in every discipline. In a certain number of cases, however, certain evidence may be pivotal and by its very nature not easily receptive to challenge in the absence of other expert opinion. In such cases the court should be slow to decline an application for a second expert.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from