In care proceedings, an order had been made for the preparation of an expert report. The legally aided children applied to the defendant for assistance. It allowed a sum less than the minimum figure set by the expert company as a fee for doing the assessment.
Held: The defendant’s decision to refuse prior approval was quashed. The court acknowledged the changes in the rules, and the need for reasons and justification of the decisions requiring such reports, but ‘ Now that the instruction of experts can only follow if a judge so orders because he or she is satisfied and gives reasons for being satisfied that it is necessary it seems to me that the defendant should only refuse to give prior approval if it has very good reasons so to do. While the judge’s decision is not binding, it must carry very considerable weight. If there is good reason to reject it in whole or in part the defendant should engage with the court. This can I suspect be dealt with in many cases in writing. If the judge, having considered the defendant’s representations, maintains his or her decision it is difficult to see how a continued refusal to give effect to it could be other than unreasonable. ‘
 EWHC 960 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – DS and Others (Children) FD 31-May-2012
The court gave guidance on legal aid arrangement for the funding of supporting expert evidence in care applications.
Held: The court gave the following guidance: ‘i) The words ‘the cost thereof is deemed to be a necessary and proper . .
Cited – Regina (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others CA 28-Jun-2002
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.473001