Doctor A & Ors v Ward & Anor

Doctor A & Ors v Ward & Anor

The judge found no real prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal, as the applicants did not allege error of law, consideration of irrelevant facts, or failure to consider relevant facts, but merely disagreed with the weight given to certain factors. The judge also declined to grant permission on the basis of compelling reasons, leaving such determination to the Court of Appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Doctor A; Claimant: Doctor B; Claimant: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Claimant: Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust; Claimant: Cambridgeshire County Council; Respondent: Victoria Ward; Respondent: Jake Ward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Family / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Injunctive Relief, Appeals, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Legitimate Expectation
Family Law Civil Procedure Anonymity Orders Injunctive Relief Appeals Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Legitimate Expectation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doctor A

Claimant

Doctor B

Claimant

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Claimant

Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust

Claimant

Cambridgeshire County Council

Claimant

Victoria Ward

Respondent

Jake Ward

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted regarding refusal of contra mundum injunctive relief and section 12 disapplication
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' Article 8 rights were given insufficient weight compared to respondents' Article 10 rights
  3. 3 Whether legitimate expectation of anonymity for expert witnesses was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found no real prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal, as the applicants did not allege error of law, consideration of irrelevant facts, or failure to consider relevant facts, but merely disagreed with the weight given to certain factors. The judge also declined to grant permission on the basis of compelling reasons, leaving such determination to the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal by First and Second Claimants refused with no order as to costs.
  • Paragraph 7 of the order of 20 January 2010 is discharged and replaced with a new stay order.