S (Children: Findings of Fact), Re
[2023] EWCA Civ 1113
YM (Care Proceedings) (Clarification of Reasons), Re
8 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 71
Court of Appeal
A judge said the dad hurt his baby accidentally, not on purpose, due to clumsiness and not being very smart. Lots of lawyers asked the judge to explain things again and again, causing confusion. The higher court said the judge was basically right, and starting the whole process over again would be a waste of time and bad for the baby.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a young boy, Y, with injuries.
- •Findings of fact made by the judge that the father inflicted injuries on Y due to inexperience and cognitive difficulties.
- •Subsequent requests for clarification of the judge's reasons led to concerns about inconsistencies and potential contradictions.
- •Local authority appealed, seeking a rehearing.
- •The appeal concerned the adequacy of the judge's reasoning and the propriety of the clarification process.
- •The judge's initial oral judgment was not included in the appeal bundle.
- •The written judgment included additions and corrections not present in the oral judgment.
Legal Principles
The practice of seeking clarifications of reasons in judgments originated from *English v Emery Reimbold & Strick* [2002] EWCA Civ 605.
[2002] EWCA Civ 605
It is a professional obligation of advocates to raise material omissions or ambiguities in judgments with the judge.
Re A and another (Children) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasoning) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205
Judgments do not have to cover every aspect of evidence or every point raised in submissions.
*Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd* [2014] EWCA Civ 5
Requests for clarification should not be used to re-argue the case or reiterate submissions.
Various cases cited in section 5 and subsequent sections.
A judgment that does not fairly set out a party's case and give adequate reasons for rejecting it is vulnerable.
Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407
The court must comply with the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, expeditiously and fairly.
Family Procedure Rules
Appellate courts should not interfere with a judge's assessment of evidence unless there is clear justification.
Section 88
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court found that while the clarification process was flawed, the judge's ultimate findings were coherent and supported by the evidence. A rehearing was deemed disproportionate given the time elapsed and the impact on the child.