MB (Expert's Court Report) [2015] EWFC B178 (18 September 2015)

MB (Expert's Court Report) [2015] EWFC B178 (18 September 2015)

Dr Lowenstein's report is inadmissible as expert evidence because it was obtained without court permission, without an agreed letter of instruction, and in breach of procedural rules and professional standards. The report's content is internally inconsistent and lacks rigorous analysis. The process exploited the vulnerability of the mother and was potentially professionally improper.

Citation
[2015] EWFC B178
Parties
Mother / Applicant: Ms MB; Local Authority / Applicant: Kent County Council; Child / Subject: H; Mother's Partner: Mr P; Guardian / Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Proceedings Care and Placement Orders / Case Management / Directions Hearing
Outcome
Application to admit Dr Lowenstein's report refused; directions given for further case management.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Professional Conduct
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Professional Conduct

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms MB

Mother / Applicant

Kent County Council

Local Authority / Applicant

H

Child / Subject

Mr P

Mother's Partner

Children's Guardian

Guardian / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Proceedings Care and Placement Orders / Case Management / Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Lowenstein's report is admissible as expert evidence in family proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the process for obtaining expert evidence complied with Family Proceedings Rules and statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether Dr Lowenstein's conduct breached professional or procedural standards

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Lowenstein's report is inadmissible as expert evidence because it was obtained without court permission, without an agreed letter of instruction, and in breach of procedural rules and professional standards. The report's content is internally inconsistent and lacks rigorous analysis. The process exploited the vulnerability of the mother and was potentially professionally improper.

Court Disposition

Application to admit Dr Lowenstein's report refused; directions given for further case management.

Orders

  • Part 25 applications to be issued within two weeks (by 2 October 2015)
  • Local Authority permitted to file further evidence by 2 October 2015