[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> S (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 2090 (21 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2090.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2090

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BRADFORD COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER PHILIPS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 21 December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE:This is an application for permission to appeal brought by Mrs Smales on behalf of the applicant/father. I directed an oral hearing on notice. The applicant in the court below was represented by Miss Nelson. We have managed to explore to some extent the rival arguments as to the frailty or otherwise of the reasoning of the learned recorder on 27 September 2001.
2. Although Mr Heaton, who prepared the skeleton argument, is highly critical of the learned recorder, Miss Nelson, who, like Mr Heaton, appeared on 27 September, has entered a spirited defence and stoutly rejects all Mr Heaton's criticisms.
3. The recorder ordered a series of trial meetings between the father and the child with a review before Judge Cliffe in the Bradford County Court on 15 January 2002. Effectively the application for permission to appeal has been treated as a stay. Accordingly there has been no development that could inform the judge on 15 January as to the way ahead.
4. It seems to me that the sensible way of dealing with this situation is to conclude proceedings in this court by dismissing the application for permission to appeal but on the basis of sensible agreements that have been reached during the course of argument between Mrs Smales and Miss Nelson. Their agreement is that there should be an immediate thrust to obtain evidence to assist Judge Cliffe in his future management of the case.
5. It is agreed that Mrs Smales' instructing solicitors, Bridger & Co, will dispatch a written request to the mother's cardiac specialist before Christmas asking for a brief medical history and an opinion on her present condition. That opinion may have to be given without a further meeting, and the specialist may have to record the reservation that the opinion is given on the basis of his last meeting, whenever that may have been. That is to reflect the urgency of the evidence gathering exercise.
6. It is then agreed that there will be a joint letter of instruction sent to Dr Bhatti-Ali, named in paragraph 5 of the order in the court below. She is a clinical psychologist, Punjabi speaking, and it is agreed she is a suitable expert for this particular case. It is also agreed that the solicitors will give telephone notice to Dr Bhatti-Ali before Christmas of her impending instruction so that she can make practical arrangements to see the parties in advance of receiving her formal letter of instruction.
7. Finally, Dr Kerry, who has given an opinion on the father in the past, will be re-instructed by Miss Nelson's instructing solicitors to re-appraise the case, not on the basis of the father's self-serving account of the history given at their meeting, but on the more realistic basis of the concessions as to misconduct made by the father at the first stage of the split hearing in April.
8. Counsel have also agreed that the future management of this case will be reserved to Judge Cliffe. They have also agreed to update the Bradford County Court as to these developments so that listing will know that the fixture for 15 January 2002 is likely to be a directions hearing only and brief, and, at the same time understand the need to find the time for a deferred substantive hearing. Hopefully, the court can then make provision for this case immediately rather than waiting until 15 January to place it in the queue of pending cases.
9. I record only what has been achieved by cooperation by counsel for whose assistance we are much indebted. The only formal order would be an order refusing permission to appeal.
Order: Permission to appeal refused. Assessment of costs.