S (Children), Re

In children proceedings, disclosure of documents and reports relating to a child is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. A party has no automatic entitlement to such disclosure. Where disclosure is not volunteered, it must be sought by application to the court hearing the case. Complaints about the scope of an expert’s report or the need for further medical evidence should ordinarily be addressed through further directions in that court, rather than by an application to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court need not resolve which procedural rules apply where that issue is immaterial to the disposal of the application.

The father sought permission to appeal against directions made by Wandsworth County Court on 11 February 2002 in ongoing applications concerning parental responsibility, contact and residence. The directions required Dr Heller to report on a child’s current health and to liaise with other clinicians if necessary. The father complained that the report might not include evidence from Dr Fitzpatrick and that relevant documents had not been disclosed. He also argued that the case should have been prepared under the Civil Procedure Rules rather than the Family Proceedings Rules. The central issue was whether those complaints should be dealt with by the Court of Appeal or by the trial court through further directions.

Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed the father’s application for permission to appeal.

1. The court did not need to determine whether the Family Proceedings Rules or the Civil Procedure Rules governed preparation of the case. That issue was immaterial to the proper disposal of the application.
2. In this sphere, disclosure of documents and reports relating to a child is essentially a matter for the court’s discretion. There is no entitlement to disclosure as of right. Unless disclosure is volunteered, it must be sought by application to the court.
3. A complaint about the ambit of Dr Heller’s report, or a request for further medical evidence and related documents, should be made to the Wandsworth County Court, as the court of trial, by an application for further directions. The Court of Appeal was not the proper forum for that case-management request.
4. The father was advised to make any such application promptly, since directions made shortly before the scheduled trial might not be capable of implementation. Applications dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the father’s application for permission to appeal.
• Wandsworth County Court made directions on 11 February 2002 for the preparation of the forthcoming hearing, including the obtaining of a medical report from Dr Heller.