![]() In short, consideration must be given to whether reopening the case will serve the child’s best interests, whether the findings will have a material impact on the current proceedings and whether there are solid grounds for believing the rehearing will result in a different finding as “mere speculation and hope are not enough.” The reasons often deployed by the Family Court are contained in Lady Hale’s leading judgment from Re B (Children Act Proceedings: Issue Estoppel). The common law doctrine of res judicata does not automatically apply to Children Act proceedings but Jackson LJ is quick to point out that “ decision to allow past findings to be relitigated must be a reasoned one”. Stage One: Do previous findings require revisiting? The Court rehears the matter and determines the issues.If that hurdle is overcome, the Court decides how the rehearing is to be conducted.The Court asks whether the applicant has shown that there are solid grounds for believing that the previous findings require revisiting.The three stages of the Court’s decision-making process can be summarised as follows: The three-stage approach is designed to assist the Court to identify whether findings of fact should be re-visited, re-litigated and re-heard. ![]() Lord Justice Peter Jackson consolidated and simplified the three-stage approach, which was originally endorsed by the Former President, Sir James Munby, in the case of Re Z (Children) (Care Proceedings: Review of Findings). ![]() Last month, the Court of Appeal handed down a decision in the case of Re CTD.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |