G-H (Children) , Re

[2013] EWCA Civ 535

Case details

Case citations
[2013] EWCA Civ 535
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
16 April 2013
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Family Child care proceedings Permission to appeal
Keywords
permission to appeal care order placement order expert evidence professional conduct allegation late Appellant’s Notice judicial resources
Outcome
application refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Permission to appeal should be refused where the material discloses no possible basis for challenging the order below. A serious allegation against expert evidence requires clear substantiation. A bare suggestion of a professional investigation, particularly one relating to another case, is insufficient. The court may also consider whether granting permission would lead to further hearings and expenditure of local and central resources unjustified by the material available.

Factual background

The father sought permission to appeal against care and placement orders made by Her Honour Judge Butler QC in respect of two children. The order was made on 29 May 2012, but the Appellant’s Notice was not filed until 30 January 2013. The proposed challenge relied on the shortened hearing, the absence of an expert witness, and an alleged professional conduct investigation concerning the expert. The central issue was whether the material disclosed a proper basis for permission to appeal.

Held

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

  1. The appeal concerned care and placement orders relating to two children. The lower court’s judgment recorded the father’s objections and substantial concessions. It found that the children had special needs which, on the evidence of the expert and guardian, the father could not meet. The judge concluded that the evidence and professional advice required the orders sought.
  2. The Court of Appeal found no possible basis for granting permission on the material before it. The apparent shortening of the hearing and the fact that the expert did not give evidence did not establish an arguable error in the decision below.
  3. A serious attack on an expert’s professional standards required clear substantiation. The suggestion that an investigation was pending was unsupported and appeared to concern another case in another county. It could not justify permission.
  4. Granting permission would merely establish a further hearing and incur expenditure of resources at local and central level which was not justified. The application was refused.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused.
  • Nottingham County Court: Her Honour Judge Butler QC made care and placement orders on 29 May 2012.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application refused

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.