Re U (A Child)

Re U (A Child)

The application to reopen the appeal was refused because the case did not meet the exceptional threshold required by CPR 52.17 and Taylor v Lawrence. There was no critical undermining of the integrity of the original proceedings, the new evidence was not sufficiently compelling, and the credibility findings against...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Subject: U (a child); Applicant: Mother of U; First Respondent: Birmingham City Council; Second Respondent: Father of U; Third Respondent: Guardian (Mrs Margaret Hodgson)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Law Care Proceedings / Application to Reopen Final Appeal Under CPR 52.17
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Reopening of Final Appeals, Child Protection, Care Orders, Expert Evidence, Role of Guardian, Finality in Litigation
Family Law Civil Procedure Reopening of Final Appeals Child Protection Care Orders Expert Evidence Role of Guardian Finality in Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U (a child)

Subject

Mother of U

Applicant

Birmingham City Council

First Respondent

Father of U

Second Respondent

Guardian (Mrs Margaret Hodgson)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Care Proceedings / Application to Reopen Final Appeal Under CPR 52.17

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should reopen a final determination of an appeal under CPR 52.17
  2. 2 Whether new expert evidence and alleged fresh facts justify reopening the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the process or outcome of the original proceedings was critically undermined

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen the appeal was refused because the case did not meet the exceptional threshold required by CPR 52.17 and Taylor v Lawrence. There was no critical undermining of the integrity of the original proceedings, the new evidence was not sufficiently compelling, and the credibility findings against the parents remained decisive. No significant injustice was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Applicant to pay Respondent’s costs
  • Detailed assessment of all parties’ costs, except the Local Authority