Re H-L (a child) (care proceedings: “necessary” expert evidence) [2013] EWCA Civ 655, [2013] All ER (D) 112 (Jun)
The court considered the test of necessity embodied in r 25.1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (the FPR). Consideration was given to Re TG (a child) (care proceedings: biomechanical engineering evidence) [2013] 1 FCR 229 (Re TG). The Court of Appeal ruled that “necessary”, for the purposes of FPR 25.1, meant necessary. It was an ordinary English word and was a familiar expression in family law. Under established authority, albeit in a different context, its precise meaning had been held to be “lying somewhere between “indispensable” on the one hand and “useful”, “reasonable” or “desirable” on the other hand” having “the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable”. In respect of an appeal from a case management decision, the principles to be applied were those set out in Re TG.
