Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
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