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...
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

NEGLIGENCE/CARE: Hinds v Liverpool County Court, Liverpool City Council, CAFCASS, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and Dr Brian Tully [2008] EWHC 665 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : hinds-v-liverpool-county-court-liverpool-city-council-cafcass-chief-constable-of-greater-manchester-and-dr-brian-tully-2008-ewhc-665-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 11, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88215

(Queen's Bench Division; Akenhead J; 11 April 2008)

Two of the father's children had been adopted following care proceedings; a third child had eventually been returned to the mother's care. After a time the police had raided the mother's home, discovering a quantity of heroin. The mother had been arrested, released on bail for a period, but then sentenced to prison; the third child was now once again in local authority care. The father claimed in the Queen's Bench Division in respect of various alleged breaches of his human rights.

The father's claim was struck out. There was no such legal entity as Liverpool County Court, and proceedings had not been served in accordance with the requisite legal requirements on the Ministry of Justice. The court had invited the father to apply to amend his claim to sue the Ministry of Justice, but he had chosen not to do so. In any event, the decisions of judges were not challengeable under the common law or under human rights legislation merely on basis that such decisions were wrong and unfounded. The father could have appealed the judge's decisions, but had chosen not to do so. The local authority had been entitled to rely on expert evidence and on findings made in the course of the proceedings, and had proceeded on the basis of evidence that had been presented to the court and tested in that context. Ultimately the court, not the local authority, had made the decisions concerning care. Many of the relevant decisions had been made by a borough council not involved in these proceedings. Witness immunity applied both to CAFCASS and the expert. The father had no cause of action against police for failing to take action in relation to the child during the mother's release on bail.

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