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...
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
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...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
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...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
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...
View all articles

EXPERT EVIDENCE: J (JG) v Legal Services Commission [2013] EWHC 804 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : expert-evidence-j-jg-v-legal-services-commission-2013-ewhc-804-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 17, 2013, 04:20 AM
Article ID : 102153

(Queen's Bench Division, Ryder J, 9 April 2013)

The 10-year-old girl lived with her mother when her parents separated. The father applied for a residence and contact order pursuant to s 8 of the Children Act 1989. The parents throughout proceedings were litigants in person but as a consequence of the child being joined to proceedings she was granted a public funding certificate, represented by a solicitor and allocated a children's guardian.

Upon the suggestion of the children's guardian the judge ordered a psychologist assessment of the family functioning and dynamics in circumstances where the mother had made allegations of domestic violence and a fact-finding had found some but not all of the allegations made out. An expert was identified and was instructed as a single joint expert to proceedings with the cost to be funded by the child as a reasonable disbursement to be incurred under the terms of the public funding certificate. At the hearing there was no consideration of the parties' financial means and the child's solicitors did not seek prior approval of the costs.

The expert prepared the report and produced an invoice for £12,000 as opposed to £7,540 which had been originally quoted. He also recommended an addendum report but would not undertake the work until the first invoice was paid. The child's solicitors would not take the risk and pay in case the LSC would not pay. The LSC, as requested by the court, explained its position that in paying the full cost of the report it would be acting in breach of s 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 due to the fact that these were private law proceedings and the costs of such a report should be equally apportioned between the parties. The LSC, therefore, agreed to pay one third of the cost. The child brought judicial review proceedings in respect of that decision.

The Law Society, intervening, proposed that the child should be ordered to produce the report and adduce it in evidence alone, ie, the report should not be one of a single joint expert. That proposal was not approved by Ryder J.

The main principles were: the court must recognise the ‘necessity' of the evidence in the first place; the court should be satisfied that the parties have complied with their responsibilities before deciding whether to grant permission for evidence from a single joint expert; the court should order equal apportionment of costs of a single joint expert save in exceptional circumstances; in certain cases prior approval will be necessary, in which case the principles in A Local Authority v DS [2012] EWHC 1442 (Fam) should be applied; the child's timetable should never have to wait for a funding decision.

The child's challenge to the legality of the decision would only succeed if it fell within the exceptionality requirement. On the facts of the case the decision was not unlawful and the ground of irrationality was not argued.


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