C (A Child)

Finality is important in care proceedings, but a court reconsidering whether to reopen a factual finding must assess all relevant material. It should not decide the issue solely by evaluating the applicant’s credibility where the new account is not self-evidently improbable and can be tested by further evidence. A court may review its own decision if it was inadvertently misled, but a change of position by the parties is insufficient. Whether a finding should be relitigated depends on its potential significance to the child’s future and the interests of overall justice. Where relevant evidence and case management remain incomplete, the matter may require urgent remittal for determination.

The appeal arose from care proceedings concerning a boy, E. In earlier care proceedings concerning his older sister, the Recorder found that the appellant mother was responsible for a deliberately inflicted bite injury. The mother later sought to reopen that finding, asserting that she had concealed the continuing relationship with W, who might instead have caused the injury.

On 11 January 2019 the Recorder allowed the application to reopen the finding. After further hearings, the local authority and other parties changed their positions. On 25 June 2019 the Recorder reconsidered and revoked her earlier decision, principally because she found the mother’s accounts unreliable. The central issues were whether that reversal was justified and whether the finding should be relitigated in light of its potential significance to decisions about E’s future.

Peter Jackson LJ, with Hickinbottom LJ agreeing, allowed the appeal.

1. The Recorder should have been very reluctant to entertain what was in substance an appeal from her own earlier decision. A court may review a decision where it was inadvertently misled, but that basis was absent here. The parties and participants were the same, and no one had misled the court. A change of position by parties did not justify the reversal.
2. The Recorder had identified the correct legal approach but failed to apply it. The mother’s credibility was not the sole relevant consideration. Her account that she remained with W in January 2017 was not self-evidently improbable, given the surrounding history. The court should therefore have obtained and considered further material, including a statement from W and, if available, expert assessment of a dental cast. Whether those steps were required before the initial reopening decision, they were required before reversing it.
3. Whether the finding should be relitigated depended on its potential significance, particularly for decisions about E’s future, and on the interests of overall justice. The psychological report treated the bite and the mother’s denial as material to future risk, while the social work report placed relatively little weight on the finding. The issue therefore remained materially relevant.
4. The Court of Appeal could not fairly determine the reopening application on the incomplete evidential and case-management record. The January 2019 decision was revived, and the application concerning the finding was remitted for speedy disposal, alongside appropriate directions for the underlying proceedings concerning E.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed and the January 2019 decision to reopen the factual finding was revived. The reopening application was remitted for speedy disposal: [2019] EWCA Civ 1777.
• Sheffield Combined Court Centre: Recorder Grundy initially allowed the mother’s application to reopen the finding on 11 January 2019, but on 25 June 2019 revoked that decision.