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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD ABUSE/NEGLIGENCE: D v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council; H v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : d-v-bury-metropolitan-borough-council-h-v-bury-metropolitan-borough-council-2006-ewca-civ-1
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 17, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86471

(Court of Appeal; Mummery, Laws and Wall LJJ; 17 January 2006)

Care professionals charged with questions of child protection and the investigation of child abuse had to be free to exercise their professional functions without the burden of an exposure to damages claims in the event that doubts about the injury or sexual abuse proved unfounded. A local authority, investigating the possibility of child abuse, did not owe a duty of care to the parents of the child while the child was the subject of an interim care order, or while the investigation continued under the aegis of that order, although it did owe a duty to carry out its reasonable plans of child protection in a professional manner.

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