[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> S (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1017 (19 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1017.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1017

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT
(Mr Recorder O'Dwyer)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Wednesday 19 June 2002

Wednesday 19 June 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: The father seeks permission to appeal an order made by Mr Recorder O'Dwyer in the Wandsworth County Court on 11 February 2002. There are current applications brought by the father for parental responsibility, contact and residence orders that will be heard for three days commencing 22 July in the Wandsworth County Court. The order directs that His Honour Judge Rose try the applications if possible.
2. All that the recorder was doing on 11 February was giving directions for the further progress of the hearing. He said that there should be a directions hearing on 15 July in any event but obviously, if either party seeks further directions in advance of that, it is open to them to apply.
3. The father's discontent focuses on paragraph 3 of the recorder's order, which provided for Dr Heller to file a report dealing with the current health of one of the children, H, by 18 March. The order specifically says that Dr Heller was to liaise with Dr Shaw and Dr Fitzpatrick if necessary.
4. The father has this morning handed in Dr Heller's report, which shows that he has spoken to Dr Shaw and to the psychotherapist treating H, Mr Green. He has not apparently spoken to Dr Fitzpatrick, although he recommends that a further report should be obtained from Dr Fitzpatrick in December 2002.
5. The father complains that for the trial on 22 July there is a risk that the court will have no evidence from Dr Fitzpatrick and that there will not have been disclosure of documents relating to Dr Fitzpatrick in the possession of either the respondent or, perhaps, Dr Fitzpatrick himself. He complains that the recorder was wrong to rule that the preparation of this contested case was governed by the Family Proceedings Rules rather than by the Civil Procedure Rules, and he has produced to me a photocopy of two pages from the Family Court Practice 2002, published by Jordans.
6. It does not seem to me necessary to investigate the nicety of which set of rules applies. It is perfectly plain in this sphere that the disclosure of documents and reports relating to a child is essentially a matter for the court's discretion. There is no entitlement to disclosure. Unless disclosure is volunteered it must be the subject of application to the court. If the father is dissatisfied with the ambit of Dr Heller's report, then his proper course is not to come here but to go back to the court of trial, the Wandsworth County Court, and to apply for further directions in relation to the extension of the medical evidence. I would suggest that he would be wise to initiate that course, if he decides to adopt it, sooner rather than later, for obviously by 15 July it will be too late to implement any direction that might be made by the court.
7. But manifestly this is not business for this court. I fear that the father's application is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and function of the Court of Appeal. This application is therefore dismissed.
ORDER: Applications dismissed