M (A Child), Re
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RYDER
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns the jurisdiction of English and Czech courts in a public law child care proceeding for 'M', a child habitually resident in England and Wales, under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003. Mostyn J requested the Czech court to assume jurisdiction, but local authorities and the child's guardian opposed, leading to this appeal. Key issues included determining the correct application of the 'best interests' principle and whether judicial continuity in England was advantageous. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the request to the Czech court and remitting the proceedings back to Mostyn J. The judgment emphasized the necessity of meeting all three conditions under Art 15(1) for jurisdiction exceptions.
Judgment
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
I order (pursuant to CPR r39.2(4)) that the identity of the Claimant and Litigation Friend must not be disclosed. That is necessary to protect the interests of this Claimant who is a child (born on 29 February 2000), and it is in the interests of justice.
The legal representatives of the Claimant apply to the Court for directions. The circumstances are as follows.
The Defendants have not been served with notice of this application, but the Litigation Friend, who is the Claimant’s father, has been served. However, he has not attended, although I am satisfied that he is aware of this hearing.
On 29 May 2004, when he was aged 4, the Claimant fell from the window of the flat where he was living with his mother and sister. He suffered serious orthopaedic injuries from which he has recovered.
On 15 February 2011 the Court approved the settlement between the parties on the issue of liability, and judgment was entered for damages to be assessed on the basis of the apportionment agreed and approved.
The Claimant has the benefit of Legal Aid for the pursuit of this claim.
By orders dated 13 December 2011 and 12 December 2012 the Master stayed these proceedings, first until 6 December 2012 and then until 19 December 2013. He also ordered an interim payment of £10,000.
There is no dispute that the Claimant has demonstrated some evidence of impaired school progress and that he is hyperactive. There have been a number of expert reports prepared.
Dr Gross and Dr Baldwin were instructed for the Claimant. Dr Gross is a Consultant Neurologist, and he has reported on 22 April 2008, September 2012 and by letter dated 25 October 2012. Dr Baldwin is a Consultant Educational Psychologist and Neuropsychologist. His reports were made in December 2008, January 2011 and September 2012. The Claimant also has the benefit of a report from an Occupational Therapist made in April 2010, but the assessment of the Claimant’s need in that report does not extend beyond 2013.
Dr Baldwin concluded that “in all probability [the Claimant] suffered an acquired brain injury most probably affecting the left hemisphere and language function”. Dr Gross concluded that “it is very likely … that there is significant brain impairment and that the accident is responsible”.
Dr Rosenbloom and Dr Reed were instructed for the Defendant. Dr Rosenbloom made a paediatric neurology report dated 7 March 2011. He accepted that there is some evidence that the Claimant’s i