Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from