Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Claire Middleton (instructed by STMBC Legal services) for the Applicants Andrew Pike (instructed by Hannays Solicitors and Advocates ) for the First Respondent Ami Dodd (instructed by PGS Law ) for the Second Respondent Georgina Hey (instructed by Ward Hadaway ) for the Third Respondent Hearing dates: 11-14, and 19-21 March 2024 ____________________
i) CD has misreported and/or exaggerated GH's symptoms in relation to urination, constipation, and fever;
iii) Between 22 August 2023 and 17 September 2023 CD has presented GH to clinicians as having passed kidney stones in his urine at home but such reports were fabricated and she has added non-renal stones to GH's urine samples.
iv) As a consequence, CD has caused GH to undergo unnecessary investigations, tests, in-patients treatment, and monitoring, and has encouraged him to believe that he was a sick child.
ii) Episodes of tonsillitis (severe enough in 2021 to require hospital admission and intravenous antibiotics);
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.