H (Childen) v (Appeal: Case Management: Part 25 Expert of Treatment)

H (Childen) v (Appeal: Case Management: Part 25 Expert of Treatment)

The judge found that the psychotherapist's reports were not commissioned as Part 25 expert reports but as reports from a treating therapist, and thus their evidence was factual, not expert opinion. The decision to exclude their opinion evidence and not call them as a live witness was a proper exercise of case management discretion and not wrong or procedurally irregular.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; 1st Respondent: Father; 2nd 4th Respondent: Children (by Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order (permission to Call Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Case Management, Expert Evidence, Child Arrangements, Procedural Irregularity
Family Law Child Law Case Management Expert Evidence Child Arrangements Procedural Irregularity

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Father

1st Respondent

Children (by Guardian)

2nd 4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order (permission to Call Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the family psychotherapist was properly instructed as a Part 25 expert and entitled to give opinion evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in excluding the psychotherapist's opinion evidence and refusing to allow them to give oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's decision amounted to a serious procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the psychotherapist's reports were not commissioned as Part 25 expert reports but as reports from a treating therapist, and thus their evidence was factual, not expert opinion. The decision to exclude their opinion evidence and not call them as a live witness was a proper exercise of case management discretion and not wrong or procedurally irregular.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused