Legal Update Archives - Page 2 of 42

Expertise

Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Avoidable Baby Death: Leila Benyounes Represents the Family at Inquest

Leila Benyounes represented the Family of a baby that died aged 1 day old in an 11 day inquest in Bradford. Leo Luca Thomson was born on 13 November 2018 at the Calderdale Royal Hospital in Halifax.  HM Assistant Coroner Peter Merchant found that Leo’s birth at 34 weeks’ gestation arose due to concerns from a cardiotocograph trace (CTG) indicating Fetal Bradycardia. There was a delay in escalating concerns regarding the CTG trace to a Doctor which in turn led to a delay in the decision to perform a Category 1 Caesarean Section. Further, when the decision to perform the Category 1 Caesarean Section was taken, a maternity theatre was not immediately available. This resulted in a delay of up to 9 minutes in Leo's delivery.  It was found that earlier delivery would have avoided a corresponding period of neurologically damaging acute profound hypoxic ischaemia such that with the prompt and effective resuscitation that he was given, would, on the balance of probabilities have led to Leo's survival.  It was also found that there were failures in Leo’s mother’s care in the days preceding Leo’s birth and she should have been diagnosed with a premature rupture of membranes on 12 November 2018, which would have led to an earlier admission to hospital.  Despite prompt and effective resuscitation Leo had suffered Irreversible Hypoxic Ischaemic  Encephalopathy (HIE). Tragically, baby Leo was transferred to Forget Me Not Hospice in  Huddersfield on the day after his birth and he died there.  The inquest heard evidence from 15 witnesses including three independent expert witnesses in midwifery, obstetrics and neonatology.  The local news article can be accessed <a href="https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/mistakes-delays-yorkshire-maternity-unit-31868155">here</a>.  Ms Benyounes was instructed by Fay Russell of <a href="https://www.switalskis.com/">Switalskis</a>.  Leila Benyounes is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked by Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Inquests and Inquiries and Clinical Negligence. Leila is appointed as an Assistant Coroner in two coronial areas and Leila regularly represents interested persons in a wide range of inquests including Article 2 jury inquests and complex medical matters. She has a special interest in obstetric, birth injury and fatal cases providing representation at inquest and in clinical negligence claims. She has been appointed to the Attorney General Regional Civil Panel Band A since 2010. Her full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes">here</a>

Missed opportunities by Police to Secure Appropriate Mental Health Support for 35 Year Old Father Talked Down from Railway Bridge

Bronia Hartley represented the family of a 35 year old father who took his life at a homeless hostel where he was left by police officers 20 minutes after being talked down from a railway bridge, from which he had intended to jump.  The inquest heard that Dean Bradley was expressing persecutory beliefs and appeared paranoid and delusional. Body Worn Video disclosed Mr Bradley pleading with officers not to be returned to the homeless hostel due to his delusional belief that people staying there were going to kill him.   Following his death Mr Bradley was found to have an excessive amount of prescribed antidepressant medication in his system but no alcohol or drugs of abuse.  HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool, Clare Bailey, found that the officers, who did not contact mental health services before leaving Mr Bradley at the homeless hostel, made “dangerous assumptions” about his presentation and failed to secure appropriate mental health support for him.   The Coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report detailing concerns regarding safeguarding pending mental health assessment where the individual is believed to be intoxicated.  Bronia was instructed by Lois Hepworth of <a href="https://www.watsonwoodhouse.co.uk/">Watson Woodhouse Solicitors</a>.  Bronia Hartley is part of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden. Bronia’s profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bronia-hartley/">here</a>.  Reporting: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20xzld3g47o">BBC</a>

Fresh Inquest into the Death of Jodey Whiting Concludes

The second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting has concluded. The Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool, Clare Bailey, concluded that Ms Whiting took her own life following the wrongful withdrawal of her state benefits which precipitated a significant deterioration in her mental state.  Ms Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, applied under s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for a fresh inquest into her daughter’s death. The application was initially rejected by the Divisional Court but was allowed by the Court of Appeal (<a href="https://www.coronersociety.org.uk/_img/pics/pdf_1679424246-944.pdf">Dove v HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2023] EWCA Civ 289</a>).   The Court of Appeal’s decision made clear that:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>the discretion as to an inquest’s scope remains with the coroner.</li>  <li>whilst the touchstone of causation is important, when setting their investigation’s scope, it is still for the coroner to decide what ‘by what means’ actually means for each inquest.</li>  <li>when addressing the ‘how’ question a coroner may, and in some cases should, in the exercise of their discretion, go beyond a bare determination of the mechanism of death. A more detailed exploration of causation may be required to meet the interests of justice.</li>  <li>causation in the context of an inquest means making a material (i.e., more than trivial) contribution, of which there must be evidence.  The subjective opinion of the family is not evidence and will not suffice without more. </li>  <li>where it is said that the state of mind of someone who killed themselves was contributed to by their partner’s infidelity, the interests of justice are not likely to require the affairs of individuals to be investigated in public at an inquest.  However, where the shortcomings of a public body are said to have contributed to a deterioration in mental health, it is harder to see why a coroner would exercise their discretion so as to ignore this factor.</li>  <li>even where Art 2 is not engaged, the bereaved family and the public have a legitimate interest in knowing how public bodies’ actions impact on citizens’ mental health.</li> </ul>  Bronia Hartley is part of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden. Bronia's profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bronia-hartley/">here</a>.

The Challenge of Proving Prevention: The Inquest of Linda O’Brien v Assistant Coroner

The High Court rejected an application for judicial review in the case of <a href="https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AC-2023-MAN-000263-Sharon-OBrien-v.-HM-Assistant-Coroner-for-Sefton-Knowsley-and-St-Helens-Judgment.pdf">O’Brien v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens</a> which limited the scope of the inquest into the death of Linda O’Brien. Linda's family contended that had her ex-partner, who was subject to a restraining order but present at her flat on the day of her death, been arrested one month prior, her death might have been prevented. The judicial review was of a decision taken by Mr Graham Jackson, HM Assistant Coroner, on 15 March 2023 that there was no coronial causation established linking previous conduct by officers of the Merseyside Police and the events resulting in Linda’s death.  Background and scope  Linda O’Brien died on 9 May 2020 after falling from a fourth-floor window at the age of 49. Her ex-partner, Alan McMahon, was the only other person present in her flat at the time. Mr McMahon was subject to a five-year restraining order due to a history of previous violence towards Linda.  One month prior to her death, on 7 April 2020, four police officers attended Linda’s flat, finding Mr McMahon present and intoxicated. The officers were unaware of his restraining order and maintained that they had checked relevant police databases which showed no reference to the restraining order. They maintained that if they had been aware of the order, they would have arrested him for breaching it.  On 9 May 2020, Mr McMahon called the emergency services when Linda fell from the window. The police attended and arrested Mr McMahon on suspicion of murder. A postmortem examination of Linda’s body found she was significantly intoxicated, and additional injuries were present which suggested possible prior assault.  On 19June 2020, Mr McMahon was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for breach of restraining order and theft. The accusation of murder was not proceeded with.  On 7 June 2022, a pre-inquest review hearing was held, and a request for a second pre-inquest review hearing was made. On 15 March 2023, after considering submissions by the Claimant and Merseyside Police, the Coroner made the decision that there was no coronial causation between the events involving police officers on 7 April 2020 and events on 9 May 2020. He decided the inquest should focus solely on the events of the night Linda died, excluding the failure to arrest Mr McMahon on 7 April. Consequently, the inquest's scope was limited, and the police's prior failures were considered only as background information.  The Claimant was given permission for judicial review of this decision on the grounds that the Coroner had erred in “prematurely and irrationally deciding that there [was] no causative connection between the acts and omissions of Merseyside Police and the death of Linda O’Brien and thereby unlawfully limiting the scope of the investigation.” [28] They argued that earlier police action could have prevented the death and that the police’s failure to act should have been fully investigated.  Outcome  The High Court, in its judgment handed down in February 2025, dismissed the application for judicial review.  The court acknowledged that had Mr McMahon been arrested earlier, he might have been in custody on 9 May 2020, and it was therefore “possible that Linda’s death would not have occurred.” [42] However, this scenario was deemed "entirely speculative" [42] and unsupported by evidence. It was held that a substantive causative link could not be established on the balance of probabilities, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr McMahon would have been in custody on the date of Linda's death. It could not be proved that, on balance, “anything done or not done by police officers on 7 April or subsequently more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to Linda’s death.” [47]. Therefore, the Coroner was entitled to rule the police conduct out of the scope of the inquest, and the decision to limit the scope of the inquest was upheld.  The Court also rejected the claim that the inquest required a jury under section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 due to potential police failings. As no probable causative link could be shown, the threshold for requiring a jury was not met.  Commentary  This case underscores a broader and enduring tension within coronial law: the need to balance the public interest in accountability with the evidentiary thresholds that define and constrain a coroner’s jurisdiction. Bereaved families may look to the inquest process for a fuller understanding of the circumstances surrounding a death, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, institutional failings, or missed safeguarding interventions. But the law remains tightly bound to legal causation. The critical legal distinction between what is possible and what is merely speculative remains at the heart of the decision in this case.  While the police's failure to arrest Mr McMahon on 7 April 2020 was a significant oversight, the court's decision reflects the difficulty in establishing a direct link between this failure and Linda's subsequent death. The ruling highlights the legal principle that inquests must be based on evidence that can establish causation on the balance of probabilities, rather than on speculative scenarios. As a result, even serious institutional shortcomings may fall outside an inquest’s formal remit if they cannot be shown to have contributed, more than minimally or trivially, to the death.  Lucy Evanson is part of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden. Lucy’s profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/lucy-evanson/">here</a>.

Morrow v HM Assistant Coroner for Merseyside (Sefton, Knowsley & St Helens) [2025] EWHC 935 (Admin)

Summary  The High Court rejected an application made by the brother of the deceased pursuant to Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to hold a fresh inquest and, in so doing, provided insight into the differences between the expectations of family members of the deceased and the purpose of the inquest process; particularly where there is the potential for overlap in determining issues of civil or criminal liability.  The Claimant’s application for a fresh inquest was predicated on concerns (that were mirrored by his wider family) that his sister’s mental health had not been appropriately managed by the relevant NHS Trust during her life, and that those failures had contributed to her death in April 2021 but were overlooked by the initial inquest and/or that there were failures in the inquest process which necessitated a fresh inquest being heard.  In identifying that, the Coroner’s conclusion that Zoe Morrow’s death was drug-related was a rational one. There was no evidence to suggest that it was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice to order a fresh inquest.  Background  An inquest into the death of Ms Morrow, the scope of which was determining the immediate cause of her death – rather than in relation to the concerns raised by her family regarding her treatment in the months prior – was held in March 2022 and recorded her cause of death as having been ‘1A Mixed Drug Toxicity’ – a finding supported by post-mortem and toxicological analysis showing that multiple drugs (with overlapping adverse effects) were in her blood at the time of death.  That the scope had been set in a narrow way appears to have been the subject of (at least some) challenge at the initial inquest, with particular reference having been made to the Coroner’s decision not to call live evidence from two treating Doctors and instead choosing to read their evidence into the record pursuant to Rule 23 of the Coroner’s Inquest Rules 2013.  The Claimant sought a fresh inquest pursuant to Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Coroners Act 1988 on multiple grounds, viz:  <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman" class="wp-block-list"> <li>That failures in treatment were overlooked and that the coroner did not appropriately consider a conclusion of suicide;</li>  <li>That the family were prevented from speaking or giving evidence;</li>  <li>That relevant evidence was overlooked;</li>  <li>That there had been collusion between the Coroner and the Trust;</li>  <li>The reading of statements from treating Doctors (as opposed to calling them to give live evidence, as referred to above);</li>  <li>The addition of late evidence;</li>  <li>A lack of guidance on inquest procedure.</li> </ol>  The High Court has the power to order a fresh inquest pursuant to Section 13 (1) (b) where it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice to do so and it is envisaged that scenarios in which that necessity could arise include (but are not limited to) insufficiency of inquiry, rejection of evidence and procedural irregularity. The framing of the Claimant’s application was potentially consistent with each such scenario but, in dismissing the application, Lady Justice Whipple observed ‘there appears to have been a mismatch between the family’s expectations of what they could achieve at this inquest and the reality of the Coroner’s investigation’.  The application  It is clear that the Court was able to deal with some of the issues raised above more swiftly than others, in particular finding that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trust and the Coroner (the finding that he had made was his own and one which he had been entitled to make) and did so having appropriately considered the toxicological evidence, with some evidence that the family had wished be considered falling outside the scope of the inquiry, a point returned to below.  In part, some of the remaining basis of the Claimant’s application appears to stem from correspondence which was intended for him, which explained which live evidence would be called and which statements would be read was not received (and could in fact now not be located) – an administrative oversight which perhaps lead to a situation where there was understandable upset from the family when it became apparent that they were not being called to give evidence. Whilst such administrative failures are always regrettable, the Court was however clear in its conclusions that the family had been allowed to speak appropriately at the inquest, including questioning the witnesses that gave live evidence and that (missing correspondence notwithstanding) appropriate efforts had been made to ensure that they understood the inquest process.  As previously indicated, it is clear that the central underlying theme of the Claimant’s application was the belief that the original inquest was unsatisfactorily narrow and that this narrow definition impacted on the cogency of the conclusion, including an alleged failure to appropriately consider a conclusion of suicide. Had they been able to do so, the family would have adduced evidence which they believed showed that Ms Morrow had intended to end her life in the months and weeks prior to her death.  The conclusion reached by the Coroner – that Ms Morrow’s death was drug related – was a factually correct one and was reached in a situation where the status of the evidence before him was not sufficient to reach a conclusion of suicide on the balance of probabilities.   It is perhaps easy to see why a bereaved family might feel (as indeed appears to have been the case with the wider Morrow family) that concentrating solely on the events immediately prior to death without consideration of context provides an unnuanced answer to the question of how the deceased died. This viewpoint might be particularly strongly held so in scenarios such as this, where the witness called to give evidence on behalf of the Trust was attending to give evidence about the Trust’s review, with the intention of identifying shortfalls in Ms Morrow’s care – although taking a step back, it appears that this evidence was more likely of use in determining whether a Prevention of Future Deaths report was indicated.  However understandable the mismatch in expectations might be, the Coroner in the initial inquest was entitled to exercise his discretion to limit the scope in the manner that he did and, taking another step back, one can see that if the scope of the inquest was set too widely, it is possible that the inquest would have strayed into an investigation into a potential civil liability, expressly contrary to Section 10 (2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.  Clearly, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the original Coroner had exercised his discretion appropriately in both his determination of scope (and it is a notable observation that, regarding the limitation to the scope of the inquest, Lady Justice Whipple was of the view that ‘most coroners would…have made a similar decision in the circumstances’) and in determining from whom live evidence was to be heard.  There was, therefore, no substantial defect in the first inquest and the inquiry which did take place was sufficient as a matter of law.  Adam Chadwick is part of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden. Adam's profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/adam-chadwick/">here</a>.

When a Sigh Becomes a Legal Issue: The Implications of Non-Verbal Discrimination

In a striking reminder of the constant evolution of workplace dynamics under equality law, a UK Employment Tribunal ruled that non-verbal expressions such as sighing or exhaling in frustration at a colleague could amount to workplace harassment and/or discrimination. This decision highlights the growing recognition of the impact of subtle, often-overlooked behaviours, particularly in cases involving employees with disabilities.  The judgment of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6826e7a8a4c1a40fde4e6487/Mr_Robert_Watson_-vs-_Roke_Manor_Research_Limited_-_1405658.2023_-_Judgment.pdf">Robert Watson v Roke Manor Research Limited</a> was published last week, concerning a software engineer with ADHD. The Tribunal heard that his project manager repeatedly sighed and made exaggerated exhalations directed at him, which were interpreted as expressing irritation or disapproval. The Claimant was also criticised for his timekeeping and focus issues, both of which were linked to his ADHD, and endured demeaning comments such as being called a “net detriment” as well as subjected to further disparaging remarks about his condition, before ultimately being dismissed. This led to the Claimant experiencing anxiety and stress.  Legal Findings  The Claimant succeeded in the following claims:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010)</li>  <li>Failure to make reasonable adjustments (section 20 and 21)</li>  <li>Harassment related to disability (section 26)</li> </ol>  Employment Judge Rayner found in favour of the Claimant, concluding that the Respondent’s cumulative failures in their legal duties amounted to unlawful treatment. She remarked that even subtle behaviours can carry serious weight, stating: “Reactions from others, verbally or as a gesture, can have a damning effect on self-esteem and anxiety.” [167]  The Respondent argued that the manager’s behaviour was caused by significant work-related stress and pressure, and they were unaware of the Claimant’s ADHD diagnosis until after his sick leave. The Tribunal was unconvinced of this, and although acknowledged that the manager’s stress was a “genuine source of pressure and frustration” [634] following the Claimant’s performance issues, the Judge concluded it did “not excuse [his] behaviour or treatment of the Claimant.”  Moreover, The Tribunal criticised the Respondent for missing multiple opportunities to constructively intervene, having failed to investigate the underlying causes of the Claimant’s performance issues or provide support before and after his diagnosis through implementing measures to address the issues: “Had the Respondent taken steps to identify adjustments required for the Claimant at an earlier stage and provided both him and the project lead with necessary support it is entirely possible that [his manager] would not have himself suffered with such work pressure and it is possible therefore that this discrimination would have been avoided.” [634]  Commentary: A Shift in the Legal Landscape  This decision has far-reaching implications for employers by establishing that harassment and/or discriminatory conduct is not limited to overtly hostile remarks or discriminatory policies; it can also manifest through tone, gestures, and body language. In environments where neurodivergent employees may already feel under pressure to mask or compensate for their differences, subtle non-verbal cues from colleagues or managers can have a disproportionate impact.  The ruling expands the definition of harassment to include non-verbal expressions that can be perceived as offensive or creating a hostile work environment. Employers are now expected to be more aware of subtle behaviours and their impact on employees with protected characteristics. This may be through additional training to recognise how their conduct, including body language, can be perceived, as well as proactively assess whether performance concerns may stem from unaddressed disabilities. This coincides with new <a href="https://www.acas.org.uk/neurodiversity-at-work/making-your-organisation-neuroinclusive">ACAS guidance about making the workplace more neuroinclusive</a>. The ruling reinforces that building an inclusive workplace means creating an environment where all employees feel respected, supported, and free from hostility, however subtle its expression.  The Claimant’s compensation is to be determined at a future hearing.

Pathfinder Launch – 16th May 2025

<ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>This handout provides a practical summary of the Pathfinder model which will commence for all cases issued from the 3rd of June 2025 in West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield). This handout is aimed to help barristers, solicitors, and all professionals involved in private family law.</li> </ol>  What will Pathfinder mean?  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Pathfinder’s commencement from 3rd June will in West Yorkshire mean an end to the existing Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) until at least March 2026 and, if it goes onto be permanently implemented, forever.</li>  <li>The rules and guidance are set out in: <a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach">https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach</a></li>  <li>The intention is that Judges will adopt a proactive, inquisitorial approach, often referred to as a 'lean in' model. This problem-solving approach will be familiar to many as mirroring that adopted in the well-established FDAC courts. That approach will be at the forefront of the court's mind in dealing with private law applications under the pilot. Where cases are allocated (at GK1 and GK2 Gatekeeping hearings) to the adjudication track and listed for a determination hearing, the expectation is that the parties will engage the problem solving approach and avoid an adversarial approach to the litigation that sadly became all too familiar under CAP. Beginning this with Judge led conciliation before any submissions is a significant feature of the adjudication track and the problem-solving approach. It is not like the conciliation that takes place at a FHDRA. It is informed by the CIR and the IDVA service where domestic abuse is a feature of the case. Those assessments allow the court to take an evidence-based approach to problem solving and helping the parties to reach agreement.</li>  <li>That judge led conciliation is recorded as an essential component of the decision hearing in the Gatekeeping order and is ordered to take place before submissions or evidence is heard in the anticipation that settlement is possible. </li>  <li>Experience in the early pilot areas establishes that it is effective on refocusing the parties on the children and their welfare and what is achievable within the life of the proceedings. It is also worth noting that by virtue of FPR 2010 Rule 1.4(g) it has for quite some time already been part of the court's duty to help the parties settle the whole or part of the case.</li>  <li>In each case allocated at Gatekeeping to the adjudication track a single Child Impact Report (CIRs) is ordered and prepared by CAFCASS. The CIR replaces safeguarding letters and Section 7 reports, the idea is that this is placing the child’s voice at the forefront of proceedings.</li>  <li>The Pathfinder process begins when an application (C100 or C1A) is issued.</li>  <li>The court reviews the application and sends an order to Cafcass (Day 1).</li>  <li>Safeguarding checks are requested and completed within seven working days.</li>  <li>The case is allocated to a Family Court Adviser. The level of intervention is decided and reviewed by a Cafcass manager.</li>  <li>If a full assessment is required, the FCA completes a Child Impact Report within 40 working days, minus the seven used for screening.</li>  <li>Children are seen (if it is decided it’s a good idea) in person within 15 working days from allocation. In pilots elsewhere 67% of children were seen (compared to just 30% of children under the CAP being seen at any stage)</li>  <li>The child’s views and their views on the recommendations appear early in the CIR. CIRs provide recommendations upfront, with consent, photographs. CIRs differ from Section 7 reports by beginning with the child’s lived experience, not parental narratives. safeguarding, agency input, and direct work findings are integrated into one report. The focus is analytical, with less emphasis on conflicting narratives.</li>  <li>In cases where domestic abuse is a feature, IDFIS (Independent Domestic Violence and Family Support) workers support those who say this is a feature during proceedings. They provide Cafcass with structured assessments and insights into what they have called ‘primary victim dynamics.</li>  <li>The theory is that these front-loaded assessments enable faster and better-informed decisions.</li>  <li>The need for any Fact-finding hearings is reduced due to early risk identification and intervention.</li>  <li>The CIR informs the Decision Hearing. This Decision Hearing replaces the traditional First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA). The intention is that Final orders can be made or further directions given at that Decision Hearing. NB the intention is that this Decision Hearing is – just as it sounds - in many cases the one and only hearing – so one at which a Final Order maybe made</li>  <li>Until Pathfinder has ‘bedded in ‘practitioners should be alerted to risks inherent in how CIRs are prepared – for example where a child is interviewed at the resident parent's home, especially if that parent is present or nearby. The setting may influence the child's responses due to perceived pressure, loyalty conflicts, or coaching. Best practice recommends conducting interviews in neutral settings and without the resident parent present, using open-ended and non-leading questions but there is no guidance currently published suggesting that these interviews are conducted neutrally so it maybe that they are not.</li> </ul>  The Pilot findings  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>In other areas where the pilot schemes have operated the average case conclusion time under Pathfinder was 16 weeks, compared to 67 weeks under CAP. There are no reported statistics yet of what proportion of those cases ended with one parent having no contact or any other statistics on outcome yet available.</li>  <li>Only 1–2 fact-finding hearings were listed per area during the pilot quarter.</li>  <li>It is suggested that Children participate earlier and more meaningfully in proceedings under Pathfinder.</li>  <li>As there are fewer hearings, it’s important to understand that this first ever hearing may well also be the last and so it is essential to make it count – judge led conciliation is intended to settle the case, if it doesn’t then submissions should be far more focused on the intended result and child-centred. Representatives and their Clients should be prepared for early child engagement and potential judicial conversations leading to a final order at this first ‘Decision’ hearing.</li> </ul>  Have there already been appeals in Pathfinder cases in earlier pilot areas?  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Re A and B Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWFC 284 (B)/ <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html</a> was a case decided in Wales ( where Pathfinder started on 29th April 2024) the issue was whether the children should go to a school in Wales or in England .</li>  <li>The order appealed was against a decision of the lay justices ordering the children to attend a school not recommended in the Child Impact Report (CIR). Procedural and analytical failures in handling a Pathfinder adjudication track case were identified.CIRs under Pathfinder are not s.7 reports but carry substantial evidential weight and they are usually the primary welfare evidence in Pathfinder adjudication track cases. Courts must not disregard a CIR without clear, reasoned justification. Effectively -A CIR recommendation should be followed unless a “good reason” for departure is clearly stated and supported by evidence. In this case no reasons were given for departure from that recommendation. Further, the welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, s1(3)) must be actively considered. Lay justices in this case failed to analyse or balance the children’s differing views, or the practical impact on each parent. Courts should either expressly or clearly implicitly address the welfare checklist when determining outcomes.</li> </ul>   Procedural Fairness and the CIR Author  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>A further issue in the case was that the father’s solicitor unilaterally contacted the Cafcass officer with questions post-GK2, without court permission or prior disclosure to mother. The response was disclosed only on the morning of the hearing. Parties must not bypass case management directions. Any challenge to the CIR must be: Made within 7 days of GK2 by applying to vary the order, and the party either seeks the officer’s attendance, or requests permission to pose written questions.</li> </ul>  Judge-Led Conciliation Is Mandatory in the Adjudication Track  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>The most important failing however in this case was the failure to have judge led conciliation which the adjudication track requires before submissions or evidence. In this case, it was entirely missed, undermining Pathfinder’s problem-solving ethos.</li> </ul>  Practice Point:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Parties and judges must ensure conciliation takes place, unless it is considered inappropriate after submissions; and that decision is clearly recorded with reasons.</li> </ul>   GK2 Orders and Variation Rights  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>GK2 hearings are conducted by the court on paper. The order:<ul><li>Sets the track (e.g., adjudication),</li></ul><ul><li>Limits evidence,</li></ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>States whether the Cafcass officer will attend.</li> </ul> </li>  <li>Parties have a 7-day right (under FPR r.4.3) to apply to vary a GK2 order.</li>  <li>Practitioners must advise clients of this right, especially where evidence may need expanding.</li> </ul>  Departure from CIR Requires Active Judicial Engagement  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Judges must not just identify perceived flaws in the CIR—they must:<ul><li>Resolve evidential disputes themselves,</li></ul><ul><li>Fill gaps using available parental evidence, or</li></ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Seek further input where necessary.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>  A court cannot substitute analysis without clearly showing how it reached its conclusion.  Pathfinder encourages: Problem-solving, non-adversarial approach, Front-loaded investigation via CIR, Avoidance of escalation into contested residence litigation. All professionals must work to reduce conflict and avoid missing procedural steps that can widen disputes and increase harm to children.  Is there a viable alternative to Pathfinder in a Private Law Children case?  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Time will tell how Pathfinder fits in West Yorkshire. Non court based dispute resolution (NCDR) offers alternatives to Pathfinder such as mediation or arbitration or both together – med-arb where mediation resolves as much as possible with an arbitrator then making a decision on the matters that remain in issue.</li>  <li>For a fully reasoned judgment in any dispute over for example - live with/spend time, relocation, choice of school cases, specific issue order - the alternative to court under Pathfinder is to refer the case to an arbitrator or  ‘private judge’ for a binding and reasoned decision by Arbitration . Referral is under the Children Scheme to the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators ( IFLA) for Arbitration: <a href="https://ifla.org.uk">https://ifla.org.uk</a>  <a href="https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/">https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/</a></li>  <li>The equivalent of an indication by way of private FDR in a children case may also be a prudent move – ‘Early Neutral Evaluation ‘– involves consideration and indication on the merits of a case by an experienced barrister or solicitor pre-issue so there is a realistic view of the outcome.</li>  <li>For further information about any of the above please contact <a href="mailto:Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk">Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a></li> </ul>

Private Children Law Update May 2025

Katherine Goss and Richard Harrington, family law barristers at Parklane Plowden chambers were invited to speak at the West Yorkshire Local Family Justice Board annual Private Law conference on 16 May 2025. Among the delegates were key stakeholders in Family Law in the region including members of the judiciary, lawyers, social workers, Cafcass and domestic abuse workers. Law students from the University of Law which sponsored the event were also in the audience. Katherine and Richard provided the following Private Law update:  We began by exploring the judicial approach to fact-finding hearings in private law proceedings, particularly where serious allegations of domestic abuse have already led to criminal convictions. Mrs Justice Lieven and Cobb J in several cases have previously emphasised that the family court is not there to forensically examine relationship breakdowns but instead to make welfare decisions in respect of the child. Reliance on written evidence, including the parents’ witness statements, CAFCASS reports and probation reports, can be sufficient to proceed straight to the welfare stage. The guidance is clear: fact-finding hearings should only be held where necessary and proportionate, and not as a default step.  We then examined the significance of judicial caution in progressing contact where a fact-finding hearing is pending. The Court of Appeal in E, F And G (Interim Child Arrangements) [2024] EWCA Civ 874 made clear that relaxing contact arrangements in the face of unresolved allegations contradicts Practice Direction 12J. Judges must not prematurely 'test out' unsupervised contact prior to a fact-finding hearing as it creates an unmanageable risk.  In T & O, Re (Appeal: Fair Hearings: Delegation of Judicial Functions) [2024] EWHC 2236 (Fam), Henke J disapproved of delegating decisions to an independent social worker as to how unsupervised contact was to progress without there being a proper opportunity for the other party to amount a challenge to the same. The court held that discretion as to how contact progresses must remain a judicial function. Similarly, in M (Children: Contact in Prison) [2024] EWCA Civ 1104, Peter Jackson LJ criticised a High Court decision that permitted prison visits and contact without there being a robust welfare analysis, consideration of Practice Direction 12J, and the court not hearing evidence from Cafcass who did not support such visits.  We then turned to the emerging framework to understand why children resist or refuse contact. We discussed the AAA–AJR–AV–PB–RRR model: Attachment, Affinity, Alignment; Appropriate Justified Rejection; Alienating Behaviours; Protective Behaviours; and Reluctance, Resistance, or Refusal. These categories assist courts in identifying the reasons behind contact breakdowns and in avoiding default findings of alienation. It was noted that proving alienation requires clear evidence of the child's resistance, that the resistance is not justified by the conduct of the contact-seeking parent, and that the other parent has engaged in direct or indirect manipulation. These are hard to prove and rare.  The discussion moved on to the importance of third-party evidence: communications between parties, school records, medical notes, and professional interactions all form part of the evidential picture. Wishes and feelings reports must be treated with caution, particularly where there may be influence or pressure on the child.  We also addressed shared care orders, focusing on the case of AZ and BX (Child Arrangements Order: Appeal) [2024] EWHC 1528 (Fam). Poole J confirmed that when the court is asked to determine whether to make a live with or spend time with order, it is not merely a question of labelling and rather, it is relevant welfare consideration; for example, a live with order would provide a father with parental responsibility. Poole J confirmed that that the key welfare advantages of making joint live with orders were 1) it prevents one parent believing they are more important than the other parent and controlling the arrangements, 2) it puts both parents on an equal footing as to holidays abroad, 3) it signals to both parents the equal value each have in the child’s life, 4) and signals to the child that each parent has the same inherent importance.  Finally, we discussed the use and limits of Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. In Re E (Section 37 Direction) [2025] EWCA Civ 470, the Court of Appeal held that Section 37 directions can only be made in relation to subject children, i.e., those already part of or directly related to the current proceedings. There is no power of the court to direct a Section 37 investigation into non-subject children.  In summary, the day’s discussion emphasised proportionality, evidence-based decision-making, and clarity of purpose in family proceedings. Whether discussing fact-finding, alienation, contact, shared care, or Section 37 orders, the golden thread remains the welfare of the child.

Hari Menon Represents Claimant Awarded Over £399,000 in Six Year Whistleblowing Claim

McNICHOLAS v CARE AND LEARNING ALLIANCE & CALA STAFFBANK  The claimant, LM, brought a claim in September 2018 against R1 and its subsidiary, R2, alleging that she had been subject to whistleblowing detriment by both these former employers and that R2 had dismissed her unfairly for whistleblowing. LM claimed her treatment was because she had made protected disclosures concerning the care of autistic children at a nursery in a school she worked. The ET, sitting in Inverness, upheld LM’s claim. It found that the disclosures were protected under s.43B(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the school had proceeded to retaliate against her by asserting that the disclosures were false and that LM was “emotionally abusing” a child in her care and her family. This theme was then taken up by the respondents in subjecting LM to detriment, which included R1 forcing her to resign, and by R2 unfairly dismissing her. The ET found that one of the main detriments was the respondents referring LM to her regulatory body, the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), alleging “emotional abuse” of a child in her care. It found that the referral was not made in good faith but to discredit LM in order to pacify a major client, the Council which ran the school.  At the remedies hearing, ML contended that she was unable to work in the teaching profession because of the outstanding referral and also because her treatment by the respondents had caused her psychiatric injury. In its judgment on remedy in November 2021, the ET awarded LM just over £42,000. Its reasoning was that the decision of the GTCS, an independent statutory body, to take up the referral against LM, was a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation. Accordingly, the respondents’ liability for LM’s loss stopped at the point when the GTCS decided proceed with the referral in February 2019.  On the sift, the EAT gave permission for the entirety of the Grounds of Appeal to proceed to a hearing. The appeal was allowed in full by Lord Fairley, sitting at the EAT in Edinburgh<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a>. The Judge found that the ET erred in law. On the ET’s own findings, the referral was malicious. LM’s loss fell within the test for causation, which was of a natural and reasonable consequence of the wrongful act, being the referral to the GTCS by R1 and R2.  In a judgment of the ET delivered on 31st March 2025 following the remitted remedies hearing, LM was awarded just over £399,000, including interest and the grossing up element for tax. This was just shy of 10x the original award. Most of this was against R1 and R2 jointly. It included amounts for past and future loss of earnings, solatium of £16,000 for psychiatric injury, Vento award of £20,000, LM’s legal expenses of the liability hearing of £20,000 and a further amount for her legal expenses of the proceedings before the GTCS and related Judicial Review proceedings in the Court of Session.  <hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>  <a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> [2023] EAT 127 also reported in <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I45F40FA0AEF411EEB68FCCC69A13F35F/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0a93936a00000196d3aa57ceab487c31%3Fppcid%3Dd9c81a967a504d1783815a84c5bec4b8%26Nav%3DUK-CASES%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIEEF720405DDE11EE90CBF8AC6F33084C%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=66b2b6e2c95bc875339cac848db51994&list=UK-CASES&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1712841fb0ac7ef508fd86cc44182cefb56adc5d28776bf26869ec4e165ed215&ppcid=d9c81a967a504d1783815a84c5bec4b8&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&comp=wluk">[2024] I.C.R. 45</a>, [2023] I.R.L.R. 975

“Putting Grindleford on the Map”

Case Note: Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB) | Jim Hester and Georgia Banks, Counsel for the Defendant  Citation: [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB) Court: High Court (King’s Bench Division), Manchester District Registry Judge: His Honour Judge Bird, sitting as a Judge of the High Court Date of Judgment: 14 May 2025  The full Judgment can be read here:  <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/1145" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/1145</a>  <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/1145.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/1145.pdf</a>  <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Overview</h4>  In Bevan v Ministry of Defence, Jim Hester and Georgia Banks were instructed by the Defendant in a claim for noise-related injury, valued by the Claimant at over £530,000.  Though experts in 3 disciplines were cross-examined over the course of the 5-day trial, the case turned primarily on the ENT evidence.  The case provides insight into claims involving alleged ‘acoustic shock’.  The claim arose from noise exposure from military vehicle and headset use.   The claim was dismissed following careful analysis of potential mechanisms of causation.  The Court concluded that the Claimant’s tinnitus and asserted psychological injury were not attributable to the conceded breach of duty. In so finding, the Court applied the Grindleford Criteria, the only extant peer-reviewed diagnostic framework for acoustic shock and found that key criteria were not met.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Factual Background </h4>  Mr Bevan served in the Household Cavalry Regiment and was involved from 2017 to 2020 in testing Ajax armoured vehicles at General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil. During this period, he wore a headset in his right ear, programmed to relay communications and alarms. His case was that prolonged exposure to repeated alarm signals, particularly the CBRN alarm, caused him to develop tinnitus and associated psychological injury.  While breach of duty was admitted by the MoD, causation and quantum were in dispute. Notably, the claim underwent an evolution: it began as a noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) case, but by trial was premised on acoustic shock.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Medical Expert Evidence - Causation</h4>  The Court accepted that a mechanism of injury was required to prove causation:   ‘…hearing loss and tinnitus can (and often do) occur without any injury or fault at all. The cause of these issues may be very difficult to identify. The ENT experts agree that “a significant number of individuals with hearing loss/ tinnitus never have an underlying cause diagnosed, even with the very best investigation.”’   Three mechanisms as to causation were considered:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>NIHL was ruled out. The experts agreed that audiometric evidence did not disclose the configuration required to meet the diagnostic criteria set out in Coles, Lutman and Buffin (2000). There was no high-frequency ‘notch’ or ‘bulge’, and no argument to the contrary was advanced at trial.</li>  <li>Acoustic trauma was also excluded. There was no evidence of a single, acoustic event which was sufficiently loud to meet that diagnosis.</li>  <li>Acoustic shock was the only remaining possibility. However, it had not been referred to during proceedings until only a few weeks before trial. </li> </ol>  The only papers available to the court which referenced acoustic shock were those written by Parker et al (2014<a href="https://www.jimhester.me/news/putting-grindleford-on-the-map#_ftn1">[1]</a> and 2020<a href="https://www.jimhester.me/news/putting-grindleford-on-the-map#_ftn2">[2]</a>).    One of the authors of these papers, Mr Andrew J Parker, was the ENT expert for the Defendant in this case.   Mr Parker had also been the ENT expert instructed (on that occasion by the successful claimant) in Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation v Goldscheider [2019] EWCA Civ 711.   The Parker 2020 paper advance the ‘Grindleford Criteria’ as an objective method when considering a diagnosis of acoustic shock.  These are the only known criteria for diagnosis of acoustic shock.   Importantly, these criteria were accepted by the court in Bevan, and so the court considered the case against these guidelines.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">The Grindleford Criteria and their Application </h4>  The Grindleford Criteria comprise four core elements (G1 - G4):  <figure class="wp-block-table"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><thead><tr><td>Criterion</td><td>Requirement</td><td>Court’s Finding</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>G1</td><td>A defined acoustic incident</td><td>Not satisfied – Exposure described was repetitive and generalised. There was no discrete incident sufficient to engage the test.</td></tr><tr><td>G2</td><td>Symptoms commencing immediately or shortly after the incident</td><td>Not satisfied – The court found that the onset of tinnitus occurred about 2 – 4 months after exposure ended.</td></tr><tr><td>G3</td><td>Symptoms exceeding normal physiological or startle responses</td><td>Satisfied – The experts agreed that the Claimant’s tinnitus could meet this threshold.</td></tr><tr><td>G4</td><td>Symptoms arising from the exposed ear(s)</td><td>Not satisfied – The Claimant ‘s tinnitus was bilateral. However, the exposure which the Claimant’s expert considered may have caused the acoustic shock was exclusively right-sided. Bilateral symptoms were inconsistent with such exposure unless the tinnitus was of sufficient magnitude – which the court found it was not.</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>  The criteria also note that there may be significant psychological overlay or relationship to illness behaviour.  The failure to meet G1, G2 and G4 was, therefore, fatal to the acoustic shock claim.  The Court accepted Mr Parker’s evidence that a qualifying event under G1 must be “memorable… enough to produce a startle and a shock”. None was identified.  Further, G2 requires at least some symptoms temporally proximate to the identified event, even if full manifestation is delayed.  Again, this feature was missing in the case.  On G4, the Claimant's tinnitus was bilateral. As Mr Parker explained, this would only be consistent with right-sided acoustic shock if the tinnitus were catastrophic or at the top-end of severe, which the court accepted it was not.  Absent a physical acoustic injury, the psychological sequelae could not be causally linked to the previous noise exposure.  <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h4>  The Court concluded:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>The Claimant did not suffer acoustic shock, NIHL, or acoustic trauma.</li>  <li>His tinnitus began after the exposure period and so could not be attributed to it in any event.</li>  <li>The subsequent conversion disorder was not caused by the Defendant’s breach.</li>  <li>The claim was accordingly dismissed.</li> </ul>  The Judgment makes clear that while acoustic shock may be a real clinical entity, its diagnosis requires rigorous and structured analysis and that the Grindleford Criteria offer the appropriate method for that assessment. Generalised or ambient noise exposure, however persistent, will not suffice without a defined event, temporal proximity, and lateral consistency.  <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Key Practice Points</h4>  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>The Grindleford Criteria are likely to become the standard means of assessing acoustic shock claims.</li>  <li>Absent a provable mechanism for injury, the fact that there had been negligent exposure and that there was an ENT-related condition is insufficient for causation to be made out. </li> </ul>  It should be noted that the Claimant sought permission to appeal from the trial judge, which was refused.  The Claimant indicated that an application for such permission will be renewed at the Court of Appeal.   <a href="https://www.jimhester.me/news/putting-grindleford-on-the-map#_ftnref1">[1]</a> William Parker, Victoria Parker, Glynn Parker & Andrew Parker (2014) ‘Acoustic shock’: A new occupational disease? Observations from clinical and medico-legal practice, International Journal of Audiology, 53:10, 764-769, DOI:10.3109/14992027.2014.943847  <a href="https://www.jimhester.me/news/putting-grindleford-on-the-map#_ftnref2">[2]</a>Parker, W. A. E., Parker, V. L., Parker, G., & Parker, A. J. (2020). Acoustic shock: an update review. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 134(10), 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215120001991

Latest News

News

18 September 2025

Leila Benyounes to speak at British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) Congress in Liverpool

Read time: < 1 m

Event

15 September 2025

01 October 2025 | Court of Protection Grandstand

Read time: < 1 m

Opinion

15 September 2025

Suspicious deaths of those detained in care homes: what amounts to an arguable breach of the operational duty under Article 2?

Read time: 15 m

News

11 September 2025

Karen Boyle Appointed Assistant Coroner

Read time: < 1 m

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Avoidable Baby Death: Leila Benyounes Represents the Family at Inquest

Missed opportunities by Police to Secure Appropriate Mental Health Support for 35 Year Old Father Talked Down from Railway Bridge

Fresh Inquest into the Death of Jodey Whiting Concludes

The Challenge of Proving Prevention: The Inquest of Linda O’Brien v Assistant Coroner

Morrow v HM Assistant Coroner for Merseyside (Sefton, Knowsley &amp; St Helens) [2025] EWHC 935 (Admin)

When a Sigh Becomes a Legal Issue: The Implications of Non-Verbal Discrimination

Pathfinder Launch – 16th May 2025

Private Children Law Update May 2025

Hari Menon Represents Claimant Awarded Over £399,000 in Six Year Whistleblowing Claim

“Putting Grindleford on the Map”

Latest News

Leila Benyounes to speak at British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) Congress in Liverpool

01 October 2025 | Court of Protection Grandstand

Suspicious deaths of those detained in care homes: what amounts to an arguable breach of the operational duty under Article 2?

Karen Boyle Appointed Assistant Coroner

Morrow v HM Assistant Coroner for Merseyside (Sefton, Knowsley & St Helens) [2025] EWHC 935 (Admin)