AB v BG & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 10 (21 January 2009)

AB v BG & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 10 (21 January 2009)

The judge erred in making a finding of unlawful killing unsupported by the medical and pathological evidence and not signposted by the local authority's schedule; further, the refusal to grant an adjournment to allow the father to respond to the new allegation was plainly wrong. The welfare limb should be heard by a different judge due to the appearance of bias.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 10
Parties
Appellant: AB; 1st Respondent: BG; 2nd Respondent: Sheffield City Council; 3rd Respondents: LW & DW (The Children); 4th Respondents: G & B (Children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Threshold Criteria, Judicial Bias, Adjournment, Unlawful Killing Findings
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Threshold Criteria Judicial Bias Adjournment Unlawful Killing Findings

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

AB

Appellant

BG

1st Respondent

Sheffield City Council

2nd Respondent

LW & DW (The Children)

3rd Respondents

G & B (Children)

4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the father to obtain medical evidence when unexpectedly facing an allegation of unlawful killing
  2. 2 Whether the judge was plainly wrong to find that AB had been unlawfully killed and that the father was a possible perpetrator
  3. 3 Whether the welfare limb of the proceedings should be heard by a different judge due to potential bias

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in making a finding of unlawful killing unsupported by the medical and pathological evidence and not signposted by the local authority's schedule; further, the refusal to grant an adjournment to allow the father to respond to the new allegation was plainly wrong. The welfare limb should be heard by a different judge due to the appearance of bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Schedule of judge's recorded findings of fact replaced with an amended schedule agreed by the parties
  • Judge's judgment to be read in light of the Court of Appeal's judgments