JG v The Lord Chancellor & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LORD JUSTICE FULFORD
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Administrative Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case addressed the funding of expert reports in private law children cases, particularly the LSC's refusal to fund the entire cost of a psychotherapist's report. The child appealed Ryder J’s decision, which supported the LSC’s position. The appellate court allowed the appeal, declaring the LSC's decision unlawful. The court outlined the principles guiding the allocation of expert costs, emphasizing the discretion courts have in family proceedings and the importance of considering the child's welfare. The decision also highlighted the procedural and legal framework governing the funding of expert evidence and the applicability of public funding.
Judgment
BLACK LJ :
This case concerns the funding of expert reports in private law children cases. It arises by way of an appeal from the order which Ryder J (as he then was) made on 9 April 2013 at the conclusion of judicial review proceedings. Ryder J’s judgment is reported at [2013] 2 FLR 1174 .
The applicant for judicial review was a child who was the subject of proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 and had been joined as a party to those proceedings, with a children’s guardian. The focus of the judicial review was the refusal of the Legal Services Commission to fund the whole of the costs of an expert instructed to assist the family court in its determination of the welfare issues in the case. In the judicial review proceedings, Ryder J decided that issue against the child who has appealed to this court. He also considered what was described as “a question of general importance”, formulated by the Law Society who had intervened in the judicial review proceedings, concerning the approach that could be taken where the family court considered that expert evidence was necessary but the only means to pay for it was through the child’s public funding certificate.
The facts
In 2006, a father made an application for a residence and/or contact order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in respect of his young daughter who was living with her mother. Neither parent was in receipt of public funding for the litigation. Both acted in person. In time, the child was joined as a party and granted a public funding certificate. She was represented by a solicitor and a children’s guardian. According to §13 of Ryder J’s judgment, “shortly after [the child] became an assisted person, the children’s guardian suggested to her solicitors that it may be appropriate for there to be a psychological assessment which analysed family relations and functioning and the impact of the ongoing dispute upon her”. The child’s solicitors identified an expert, compiled draft instructions and served them on the parents.
The court was then invited by the guardian to permit the instruction of an expert psychotherapist to prepare a report on the family. It seems that the issue was addressed at a hearing before the district judge on 15 October 2008. We have not been shown a copy of the order made that day and information as to precisely what happened is lacking. This is how Ryder J described the situation (§17):
“At a hearing on 15 October 2008 the district judge