W (A Child), Re

W (A Child), Re

The judge's refusal to order an expert obstetrician's report was a reasonable exercise of discretion, supported by the evidence and the statutory framework. There was no factual basis for further expert evidence, and the judge properly considered Article 8 rights and the need for a fair trial.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: Local Authority; Subject: W (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Protection / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Hearing
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and stay refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Article 8 ECHR, Non Accidental Injury, Appeals
Family Law Child Protection Expert Evidence Case Management Article 8 ECHR Non Accidental Injury Appeals

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

Local Authority

Respondent

W (A Child)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Protection / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order an expert obstetrician's report
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave sufficient weight to Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the judge's case management decision was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to order an expert obstetrician's report was a reasonable exercise of discretion, supported by the evidence and the statutory framework. There was no factual basis for further expert evidence, and the judge properly considered Article 8 rights and the need for a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and stay refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of hearing refused