GW & Anor v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1247 (31 October 2005)

GW & Anor v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1247 (31 October 2005)

Where the outcome of care proceedings turns on the opinion of a single expert in a critical medical field, parents are entitled to a second opinion, and the court should be slow to refuse such an application. The refusal to allow a second expert in this case was an error, and the findings could not stand.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1247
Parties
Appellant (mother): GW; Appellant (father): PW; 1st Respondent: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council; 2nd Respondent: KPW (A Child) by his guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (public Law Children) / Appeal From First Limb of Split Hearing (findings of Fact)
Outcome
Appeal allowed by consent; findings set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Expert Evidence, Non Accidental Injury, Case Management, Second Medical Opinion
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Expert Evidence Non Accidental Injury Case Management Second Medical Opinion

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GW

Appellant (mother)

PW

Appellant (father)

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

1st Respondent

KPW (A Child) by his guardian

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (public Law Children) / Appeal From First Limb of Split Hearing (findings of Fact)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should have permitted a second expert opinion in critical medical evidence in care proceedings
  2. 2 Whether refusal to allow a second opinion constituted procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Where the outcome of care proceedings turns on the opinion of a single expert in a critical medical field, parents are entitled to a second opinion, and the court should be slow to refuse such an application. The refusal to allow a second expert in this case was an error, and the findings could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by consent; findings set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Findings of fact made by Judge Newton set aside.
  • Case remitted to a judge of the Family Division for rehearing.