Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Jade Quirke
Jade Quirke
Family Solicitor
Read on
Spencer v Anderson (Paternity Testing: Jurisdiction) [2016] EWHC 851 (Fam)
Date:21 APR 2016
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 15 April 2016)

Medical treatment – Parentage – DNA testing – Putative father died of bowel cancer – Man sought declaration of parentage and direction permitting testing of deceased’s DNA sample

The court directed that a DNA sample of the deceased could be used to establish the parentage of the applicant.

The man applied for a declaration pursuant to s 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 for a declaration that the deceased who died intestate in 2012 was his father. The relief sought included a direction that a stored DNA sample from the deceased, extracted for medical purposes could be tested to establish the man’s paternity. No such case had thus far come before the courts of England and Wales.

The deceased died of bowel cancer which was a hereditary disease and a DNA sample was taken to test for two high risk genes. A genetic counsellor informed the man that if the deceased was his father then he would have a 50% risk of an inherited disposition to bowel cancer.

The judge found that there was no statutory power to direct post-mortem scientific testing to establish biological relationship and, therefore, no statutory power to make the direction sought. However, where the absence of a remedy would lead to injustice the judge held that the High Court possessed an inherent power to direct such testing.

In determining whether the exercise the power the judge had to weigh up the completing considerations of the interests of the deceased and the public interest arguments on the one hand against the interests of the living and the interests of justice. On the facts of this case if the court were unable to obtain evidence of parentage severe and avoidable justice might result. Consideration of the implications of ordering testing in the absence of consent and of the wider public interest did not lead to the conclusion that the jurisdiction did not exist but rather that the jurisdiction should only be used sparingly.

The judge ordered that scientific testing should take place to establish paternity. The man’s interest in knowing his parentage, the issues raised by the medical history and the marked advantage of scientific testing as a means of resolving the issues, carried more weight in the particular circumstances of this case than the counter-indicators.


Case No: PR15P00702

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 851 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

15 April 2016
Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Sitting at Manchester Civil Justice Centre

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

David Spencer
Applicant

-and-

Carol Spencer
-and-
Darren Hall
-and-
Valerie Anderson
(Personal Representative of the Estate of William Brian Anderson Deceased)
Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James Kemp (instructed by TM Solicitors Ltd) for the Applicant
Michael Mylonas QC and Amy Street (instructed by Slater Gordon) for the Respondents

Hearing date: 14 March 2016; Judgment date: 15 April 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


JUDGMENT

Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
£91.99
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99