Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Leeds City Council v A & Ors

[2024] EWFC 242 (B)
A city council thought a dad hurt his niece. Doctors disagreed about the injuries, and there wasn't enough proof to show the dad did it. So, the case was dropped.

Key Facts

  • Leeds City Council (LA) alleged that B, the father, caused injury to the genital area of his toddler niece, Z, during a weekend visit.
  • Z's injuries included a laceration, erythema, and oedema in her genital area.
  • The LA sought findings of likelihood of significant harm to B's children, X and Y, based on the alleged harm to Z.
  • The medical evidence regarding Z's injuries was contested, with differing opinions from examining doctors Dr R and Dr Teebay.
  • B denied causing Z's injuries and the LA's case rested on the possibility of the injuries' infliction during a 1.5-hour period B was alone with Z and his son X.
  • There were concerns about inconsistencies and missing details in the initial medical documentation and statements.
  • The court considered evidence from multiple witnesses, including medical experts, social workers, the foster carers (C and D), and the parents (A and B).
  • The children's guardian did not support the LA's findings.

Legal Principles

Threshold criteria for Care or Supervision Orders: A child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm; and that harm is attributable to care given.

Section 31(2) Children Act 1989

Standard of proof: Balance of probabilities.

Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35

'Likely' in section 31(2) means a real possibility, not 'more likely than not'.

Re J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9

Lies: A witness may lie for many reasons; a lie about one matter doesn't mean they lied about everything.

R v Lucas [1981] QB 720; Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451

Expert evidence: The court weighs expert evidence against other evidence; the judge decides.

A County Council v KD and L [2005] 1 FLR 851; Re B (Care: Expert Witnesses) [1996] 1 FLR 667

Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) Guidance: Significant departures from ABE guidance may reduce the weight given to interviews.

Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46

Cases involving sexual abuse allegations require forensic rigor and caution against the 'child protection imperative'.

Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27

Medical evidence in sexual abuse cases is often non-specific, ambiguous, or equivocal.

Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27; RCPCH guidance

Identification of perpetrator: The LA must show a real possibility that each person on a list of potential perpetrators caused the harm.

Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575; Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA 1248

Outcomes

The proceedings were dismissed.

The LA failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Z suffered the alleged injuries, and therefore, the threshold for the likelihood of significant harm to X and Y was not met.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.