McC (A Child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 165 (19 January 2012)

McC (A Child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 165 (19 January 2012)

The application to admit fresh evidence was refused because it failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria, was procedurally flawed, lacked court permission, and did not comply with guidelines for instructing overseas experts.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 165
Parties
Applicant Mother: Ms Obi Exekpazu; Respondent Local Authority: Wokingham Borough Council; Respondent Father: Second Respondent father; Respondent Child: Third Respondent, the child via her Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Public Law Child Care Proceedings / Preliminary Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Admission of Fresh Evidence, Instruction of Overseas Medical Experts, Care Orders, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Admission of Fresh Evidence Instruction of Overseas Medical Experts Care Orders Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Obi Exekpazu

Applicant Mother

Wokingham Borough Council

Respondent Local Authority

Second Respondent father

Respondent Father

Third Respondent, the child via her Children's Guardian

Respondent Child

Procedural Posture

Public Law Child Care Proceedings / Preliminary Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from an overseas medical expert should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Compliance with procedural requirements for instructing experts
  3. 3 Application of guidelines for instruction of overseas medical experts

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit fresh evidence was refused because it failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria, was procedurally flawed, lacked court permission, and did not comply with guidelines for instructing overseas experts.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused