Court of Appeal Calls Oral Judgment in Complex Case an “Unwise Course”

The England and Wales Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Baker, Lady Justice Andrews, and Lord Justice Holgate, has cautioned family court judges against delivering oral judgments in complex fact-finding proceedings, observing that such an approach can undermine the quality of judicial reasoning and make appellate review more difficult. The Court stressed that cases involving intricate factual and medical issues ordinarily require carefully reasoned written judgments.

The observations came in B and G (Fact-Finding), where the Court heard an appeal arising from care proceedings concerning two children. At first instance, Her Honour Judge Kushner found that the children had sustained injuries which were inflicted by one or both of their parents. Instead of issuing a reserved written judgment, however, the trial judge delivered her findings orally.

Delivering the leading judgment, Lord Justice Baker, with whom Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Holgate agreed, observed that it was apparent the trial judge had not been reading from a prepared written text but had instead delivered the judgment from notes. While acknowledging that there is “nothing inherently wrong” with oral judgments, he described such an approach as “hazardous” in cases involving complex evidence, as it increases the risk that significant aspects of the evidence or reasoning may be overlooked.

The Court found that the judgment lacked the structure and detailed analysis expected in a case involving conflicting medical evidence and serious findings of fact. According to Lord Justice Baker, written judgments are essential not only to explain the reasoning behind the court’s conclusions but also to enable the parties and appellate courts to properly understand and scrutinise those findings.

Allowing the appeal, the Court held that the trial judge’s conclusion that the children’s injuries had been inflicted could not stand. The bench found that the medical evidence was far from conclusive and that the judge’s analysis of that evidence was flawed. Consequently, the findings were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Family Presiding Judge for the South Eastern Circuit for further consideration.

In a concurring opinion, Lady Justice Andrews emphasised that while judges retain the discretion to deliver either oral or written judgments, some cases clearly require a reserved written judgment because of their nature and complexity. She described it as “most unwise” for the trial judge to have proceeded by way of an oral judgment in the present case.

She also highlighted the importance of circulating draft written judgments under embargo before they are formally handed down. This practice allows legal representatives to identify omissions or factual inaccuracies, enabling judges to correct them before the judgment becomes final. The ruling reaffirms that in complex family proceedings, clear and well-reasoned written judgments remain essential to ensuring transparency, fairness, and effective appellate scrutiny.