Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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