WSP v Hull City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 981 (24 May 2006)

WSP v Hull City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 981 (24 May 2006)

Joint instruction of single experts in each discipline is the correct approach at the initial stage; independent instruction of further experts is only justified if the first opinion proves pivotal. Psychiatric evidence relating to the father's condition and medication at the relevant time is directly relevant and should be disclosed, but the father cannot be compelled to file a report from his psychiatrist; disclosure of medical records is the appropriate order.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 981
Parties
Appellant: W. S. P.; First Respondent: Hull City Council; Second Respondent: F. S.; Third and Fourth Respondents: D. M. S. and B. S. S. by their Children's Guardian, Ruth Turner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (family Division) / Appeal From Case Management Decisions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed; extension of time and permission to cross-appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Expert Evidence, Disclosure of Medical Records, Psychiatric Evidence, Case Management
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Expert Evidence Disclosure of Medical Records Psychiatric Evidence Case Management

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. S. P.

Appellant

Hull City Council

First Respondent

F. S.

Second Respondent

D. M. S. and B. S. S. by their Children's Guardian, Ruth Turner

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (family Division) / Appeal From Case Management Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parents should be permitted to instruct independent experts in addition to jointly instructed experts
  2. 2 Whether psychiatric evidence relating to the father is relevant and how it should be obtained
  3. 3 Whether the judge had power to compel the father to file a report from his psychiatrist

Ratio Decidendi

Joint instruction of single experts in each discipline is the correct approach at the initial stage; independent instruction of further experts is only justified if the first opinion proves pivotal. Psychiatric evidence relating to the father's condition and medication at the relevant time is directly relevant and should be disclosed, but the father cannot be compelled to file a report from his psychiatrist; disclosure of medical records is the appropriate order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed; extension of time and permission to cross-appeal granted.

Orders

  • Joint instruction of four experts upheld; no leave for parents to instruct independent experts at this stage.
  • Order for father to file psychiatric report set aside; order for immediate disclosure of father's psychiatric and GP medical records substituted.