Re M (Children)

Re M (Children)

The Cansford evidence was not wholly inconsistent with the judge's findings and was irregularly obtained without court permission. Admission of further expert evidence and a rehearing were not necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, and would not have influenced the central findings or outcome. The statutory requirements and procedural rules weighed heavily against admission.

Parties
Applicant: Applicant Mother; Respondent: Respondent Father; Respondent: Respondent Local Authority; Interested Party: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Admission of Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application to admit fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Admission of Expert Evidence, Rehearing of Findings of Fact, Reporting Restrictions, Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings
Family Law Child Protection Admission of Expert Evidence Rehearing of Findings of Fact Reporting Restrictions Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant Mother

Applicant

Respondent Father

Respondent

Respondent Local Authority

Respondent

Children's Guardian

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Admission of Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to appeal out of time from findings of fact
  2. 2 Whether further expert evidence obtained without court permission should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether a rehearing of the fact-finding hearing should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Cansford evidence was not wholly inconsistent with the judge's findings and was irregularly obtained without court permission. Admission of further expert evidence and a rehearing were not necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, and would not have influenced the central findings or outcome. The statutory requirements and procedural rules weighed heavily against admission.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application to admit fresh evidence refused.

Orders

  • All applications dismissed.
  • Cansford evidence not admitted.