C (A child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1477 (16 November 2012)

C (A child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1477 (16 November 2012)

There is no evidential basis to justify reopening the fact finding process. The new expert evidence does not materially undermine the original findings that the injuries were inflicted and not caused by vitamin D deficiency or rickets. The application for permission to appeal is refused to prevent further delay and uncertainty for the child.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1477
Parties
Subject: C (A child); Appellant's Counsel: Mr Michael Shrimpton; First Respondent's Counsel: Mr Anthony Hayden QC; First Respondent's Counsel: Mr Charles Prest; Second Respondent's Counsel: Ms Jo Delahunty QC; Second Respondent's Counsel: Mrs Denise Marson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal, Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Fact Finding, Expert Evidence, Non Accidental Injury, Vitamin D Deficiency, Rickets, Adoption, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Fact Finding Expert Evidence Non Accidental Injury Vitamin D Deficiency Rickets +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C (A child)

Subject

Mr Michael Shrimpton

Appellant's Counsel

Mr Anthony Hayden QC

First Respondent's Counsel

Mr Charles Prest

First Respondent's Counsel

Ms Jo Delahunty QC

Second Respondent's Counsel

Mrs Denise Marson

Second Respondent's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal, Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new medical evidence (vitamin D deficiency/rickets) justifies reopening fact finding on causation of injuries
  2. 2 Whether the original findings on inflicted injury should be reconsidered in light of recent case law and expert reports

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidential basis to justify reopening the fact finding process. The new expert evidence does not materially undermine the original findings that the injuries were inflicted and not caused by vitamin D deficiency or rickets. The application for permission to appeal is refused to prevent further delay and uncertainty for the child.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for adjournment to instruct further experts refused
  • Original findings and orders of HHJ Carr QC stand