Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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