TG (A Child)

TG (A Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the case management judge correctly applied the relevant principles, exercised discretion reasonably, and biomechanical engineering evidence was not reasonably required in this case given the speculative nature of the incident, the sufficiency of existing medical expert evidence, and the disproportionate cost and delay. There was no breach of fairness or Article 6 rights.

Parties
Subject: TG (A Child); Applicant: Father; Respondent/supporter: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent/supporter: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Appeal Against Case Management Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Case Management Discretion, Non Accidental Injury, Biomechanical Engineering Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Admissibility of Expert Evidence Case Management Discretion Non Accidental Injury Biomechanical Engineering Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TG (A Child)

Subject

Father

Applicant

Mother

Respondent/supporter

Local Authority

Respondent

Children's Guardian

Respondent/supporter

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Appeal Against Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce biomechanical engineering evidence in care proceedings involving suspected non-accidental injury
  2. 2 Whether refusal to permit biomechanical evidence breaches fairness or Article 6 rights
  3. 3 Appropriate exercise of case management discretion in controlling expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the case management judge correctly applied the relevant principles, exercised discretion reasonably, and biomechanical engineering evidence was not reasonably required in this case given the speculative nature of the incident, the sufficiency of existing medical expert evidence, and the disproportionate cost and delay. There was no breach of fairness or Article 6 rights.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; Judge Bellamy's order stands