Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
What price justice? Experts or treating clinicians? LB Islington v Al Alas and Wray
Sep 29, 2018, 18:14 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jun 18, 2012, 05:11 AM
Article ID :99173
Jo Delahunty QC 4 Paper Buildings
Kate Purkiss Coram Chambers
In their article, Jo Delahunty QC and Kate Purkiss, who represented Chana Al Alas in the care proceedings in which she and the father were exonerated from having caused the death of their son, explore the obstacles to and then the difficulties surrounding the instruction of experts in cases concerning the TRIAD of injuries (subdural haematoma, encephalopathy and retinal haemorrhages) and question the extent to which it is ever appropriate to rely upon the evidence of treating clinicians in such cases. This issue is likely to be one of huge importance to practitioners with the proposed Family Justice Modernisation Programme aiming to reduce further the need for expert evidence. (See also, 'The vitamin D and rickets case: LB Islington v Al Alas and Wray in June  Fam Law 659 by Jo Delahunty QC and Kate Purkiss.)
To read the rest of this article, see July  Family Law journal.
To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here