M and Z (Children), Re [2020] EWFC 59 (14 July 2020)

M and Z (Children), Re [2020] EWFC 59 (14 July 2020)

No findings of fact were made in the previous proceedings as to the cause of Z's skull fracture; the court did not determine causation, and all parties agreed to withdrawal without factual resolution. New evidence (statements by M and further injury to Z) constitutes solid grounds to reopen and investigate the causation issue in the current proceedings. Even if a finding had been made, the new evidence would justify revisiting it.

Citation
[2020] EWFC 59
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent (mother): YS; 2nd Respondent (father): ZI; Respondent Children: M and Z
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989 / Interlocutory Judgment on Whether Factual Causation of Injury Can Be Determined/reopened
Outcome
Court will consider and determine the causation of Z's skull fracture and related issues in the current proceedings; issues are not barred by res judicata or issue estoppel.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Withdrawal of Proceedings, Reopening Findings of Fact, Threshold Criteria, Res Judicata in Children Cases
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Withdrawal of Proceedings Reopening Findings of Fact Threshold Criteria Res Judicata in Children Cases

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

YS

1st Respondent (mother)

ZI

2nd Respondent (father)

M and Z

Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989 / Interlocutory Judgment on Whether Factual Causation of Injury Can Be Determined/reopened

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can lawfully or should consider the causation of Z's skull fracture in current proceedings
  2. 2 Whether previous proceedings determined the cause of Z's injury
  3. 3 Whether principles of res judicata or issue estoppel prevent re-litigation of causation

Ratio Decidendi

No findings of fact were made in the previous proceedings as to the cause of Z's skull fracture; the court did not determine causation, and all parties agreed to withdrawal without factual resolution. New evidence (statements by M and further injury to Z) constitutes solid grounds to reopen and investigate the causation issue in the current proceedings. Even if a finding had been made, the new evidence would justify revisiting it.

Court Disposition

Court will consider and determine the causation of Z's skull fracture and related issues in the current proceedings; issues are not barred by res judicata or issue estoppel.

Orders

  • Requests for clarification or reconsideration of the judgment invited from parties.
  • Further submissions invited on the extent of investigation and the Part 25 application.