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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

NEGLIGENCE: VL (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Oxford County Council [2010] EWHC 2091 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC2091
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 22, 2010, 10:20 AM
Article ID : 91433

(Queen's Bench Division; Mackay J; 5 August 2010)

The child suffered permanent brain damage injuries at the hands of the father. A care order was made and the local authority first placed the child with her maternal grandparents, then permitted the child to return to her mother's care and finally carefully reintroduced the father to the family.  

When the child became an adult, she sought compensation for criminal injuries from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) and received the maximum possible compensation under the current scheme (£500,000). Subsequently she claimed that the local authority were negligent in that they failed to make an application on her behalf before the scheme changed and payouts were reduced. There was no precedent for such a claim.  

Although the authority had the power to make a CICB claim even if mother objected, having such power did not mean it had a duty in tort to maximise the economic position of a child in care by allocating time and resources to a pursuit of all available financial claims in a situation where a parent retained a share of parental rights. The primary focus of the authority had been on the physical welfare and safety of the child and rebuilding the family unit. In particular, the authority had prioritised reintegrating the father into the family over making the claim. It was not fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care of this type and scope.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

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