M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors

M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors

The applicant failed to establish solid grounds for challenging the 2010 findings or any real reason to believe the findings required revisiting. The new medical evidence and expert opinions did not overcome the original findings regarding the mechanism of injury, absence of credible explanation, and lack of evidence that Y suffered from relevant medical conditions. Expert reports from Dr Ayoub and Professor Holick were irregularly obtained and unreliable. Permission to reopen the findings and to instruct further experts was refused.

Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: Derbyshire County Council; 2nd Respondent: F; 3rd and 4th Respondents: X & Y (through Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Family / Application to Reopen Findings of Fact
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Reopening Findings of Fact, Expert Evidence, Non Accidental Injury, Care Orders, Adoption Orders
Family Law Child Protection Reopening Findings of Fact Expert Evidence Non Accidental Injury Care Orders Adoption 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

Derbyshire County Council

1st Respondent

F

2nd Respondent

X & Y (through Children’s Guardian)

3rd and 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family / Application to Reopen Findings of Fact

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are solid grounds to reopen findings of fact regarding non-accidental injuries to a child
  2. 2 Admissibility of expert evidence obtained without court permission
  3. 3 Impact of new medical diagnoses (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Vitamin D deficiency) on previous findings

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish solid grounds for challenging the 2010 findings or any real reason to believe the findings required revisiting. The new medical evidence and expert opinions did not overcome the original findings regarding the mechanism of injury, absence of credible explanation, and lack of evidence that Y suffered from relevant medical conditions. Expert reports from Dr Ayoub and Professor Holick were irregularly obtained and unreliable. Permission to reopen the findings and to instruct further experts was refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to reopen findings of fact refused
  • Permission to instruct further expert (Dr Saggar) refused