A LOCAL AUTHORITY v Mother & Ors

A LOCAL AUTHORITY v Mother & Ors

The applications to reopen the fact-finding judgment succeed on the basis of procedural unfairness due to significant non-compliance with participation directions and Ground Rules for vulnerable parties, as demonstrated by fresh expert and intermediary evidence; the medical evidence criticisms alone do not justify reopening, but the fairness issues do.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: A (by his Children's Guardian); Fourth Respondent: B (by her Children's Guardian); Fifth Respondent: C (by his Children's Guardian); Sixth Respondent: D (by her Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement/adoption Proceedings / Application to Reopen Fact Finding Judgment (stage 1 of Re E Test)
Outcome
Application to reopen fact-finding judgment allowed on fairness grounds; dismissed on medical evidence grounds.
Legal Topics
Reopening Findings of Fact, Vulnerable Parties, Procedural Fairness, Participation Directions, Adoption, Care Orders
Family Law Child Protection Reopening Findings of Fact Vulnerable Parties Procedural Fairness Participation Directions Adoption Care Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

A (by his Children's Guardian)

Third Respondent

B (by her Children's Guardian)

Fourth Respondent

C (by his Children's Guardian)

Fifth Respondent

D (by her Children's Guardian)

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement/adoption Proceedings / Application to Reopen Fact Finding Judgment (stage 1 of Re E Test)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fact-finding judgment of 14 December 2018 should be reopened
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness due to inadequate participation directions and failure to implement Ground Rules justifies a rehearing
  3. 3 Whether new evidence regarding parents' vulnerabilities and need for intermediaries constitutes solid grounds for reopening

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to reopen the fact-finding judgment succeed on the basis of procedural unfairness due to significant non-compliance with participation directions and Ground Rules for vulnerable parties, as demonstrated by fresh expert and intermediary evidence; the medical evidence criticisms alone do not justify reopening, but the fairness issues do.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen fact-finding judgment allowed on fairness grounds; dismissed on medical evidence grounds.

Orders

  • Cause of C’s head injury to be relitigated at a rehearing.
  • Further directions hearing to be held to consider arrangements for the rehearing and subsequent stages.