Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England: Costs) [2023] EWHC 982 (Fam)
Dr Charlotte Proudman represented a victim of domestic abuse who was abused by her ex-partner, a senior social worker. The mother appealed the trial Judge’s refusal to disclose findings of domestic abuse to the father’s regulatory body, Social Work England (SWE). The mother was successful in her appeal and the Judge handed down guidance on the court’s approach to addressing applications to disclose court judgments to regulatory bodies, see, Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England: Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2023] EWHC 447 (Fam) (2 March 2023).
The mother applied for a costs order against the father and SWE. Mrs Justice Knowles made a costs order against SWE, “requiring SWE to pay two-thirds of the mother’s costs…within 28 days the sum of £7,010.32” (§19).
Mrs Justice Knowles held:
16. SWE had clearly come to a decision before asking for the transcript that disclosure of the fact finding judgment would be of great relevance to its enquiry into the father’s fitness to practise so its failure to take any steps either to challenge the judge’s decision or even to ascertain the basis upon which it had been reached struck me as wholly inexplicable and unreasonable. SWE’s inaction prompted the mother to issue her own application for permission to appeal in circumstances where she should not have needed to do so. Being blunt, SWE should have been the appellant and not the mother. However, once SWE was joined as an intervener, it played a helpful part in the appeal and was entirely supportive of the mother’s case.
18. I have thought very carefully indeed whether SWE should pay all of the mother’s costs. Its conduct prior to the start of the proceedings was unreasonable as I have explained, but it assisted the court at the hearing as the main judgment makes clear. I observe that the mother was not obliged to mount her own appeal against the judge’s decision and take upon herself the safeguarding and regulatory duties which were properly those of SWE. She did all she could to encourage SWE to take the proper steps to challenge the judge’s decision but could then have decided not to incur cost and expense on her own account. Likewise, once she had sight of SWE’s skeleton argument in the appeal, the mother need not have participated further and incurred the cost of instructing counsel given that her position was virtually identical to that of SWE.
Read here.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
