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

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