Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

29 NOV 2005

CARE: (1) GW and (2) PW v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and KPW ((A Child) by his guardian) [2005] EWCA Civ 1247

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ and Black J; 31 October 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 543

The local authority initiated care proceedings as it was suspected that one of the parents had caused non-accidental head injury to the baby. The judge made findings on the basis of a single expert's evidence. The father appealed against the judge's refusal of an application at trial to instruct a second expert. Thorpe LJ permitted the release of papers to a second expert who in turn expressed a clear disagreement with the first expert. In the circumstances all the parties agreed to the case being remitted to a judge of the Family Division for re-hearing. The Court of Appeal observed that it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to obtain a second opinion in every discipline. In a certain number of cases, however, certain evidence may be pivotal and by its very nature not easily receptive to challenge in the absence of other expert opinion. In such cases the court should be slow to decline an application for a second expert.

Family Court Practice 2016, The

(Red Book)

Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement

More Info from £465.00
Available in Family Law Online
Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports

"The unrivalled and authoritative source of judicially approved case reports, covering all areas...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters