June Venters KC and Rachel Temple successful in Court of Appeal permission hearing on witnesses in family courts

2nd December 2025

3PB family law silk June Venters KCJune Venters KCCall: 2017Silk: 2006, leading 3PB family barrister Rachel TempleRachel TempleCall: 2004 (pictured here, left to right), successfully acted for the father in the Court of Appeal case of The Father, Mother, E a child (by his Children’s Guardian) and Aimee Dover Case No: CA-2025-001859. This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial criticism against any individual witness, whether a lay person or a professional, within family court proceedings.

The case follows earlier children proceedings from October 2020, initiated by the child’s father and a FFH Hearing held in October 2024. Aimee Dover is a psychotherapist and was a witness for the mother and gave evidence at the Fact-Finding Hearing, during which she was cross-examined. The fact-finding judgment contains adverse findings of fact and significant professional criticisms about Ms Dover, particularly concerning her work with the father’s daughter, who later killed herself. The criticisms are detailed in the earlier Fact-Finding judgment. The judgment names her.

The Court of Appeal has today clarified the scope of judicial criticism of witnesses, whether lay or professional, within family proceedings. Commenting on the ruling, 3PB’s June Venters KC stated: “The key message is that a court is entitled to make adverse findings and significant criticisms of a witness, provided that the criticisms and their factual basis have been fairly and properly put to the witness during cross‑examination. A witness who faces the possibility of adverse findings does not, by reason of that risk alone, acquire any right to intervene or to be legally represented.”

This clarification is of considerable practical importance. It confirms that judicial criticism, when grounded in fair process, does not trigger additional procedural rights for witnesses. The ruling is likely to prevent unnecessary delay and expense in family proceedings, thereby alleviating pressure on an already overstretched court system.

Commenting, June said: In Ms Dover's case, the court found that because she was challenged extensively on her conduct and had a fair opportunity to respond when being cross examined, the adverse findings were sustainable. Conversely, the procedure in the earlier case of Re W was deemed fundamentally unfair because the adverse findings were made entirely without prior notice—they "came out of the blue," only surfacing in the final written judgment. The principle established is: Fair process validates judicial criticism; surprise invalidates it."

Today's Court of Appeal ruling sees Ms Dover's appeal dismissed on all grounds. If you wish to read a summary of the case from counsel, please click here to access June Venters KC and Rachel Temple's briefing on the case. If you wish to read the full judgement, click here.

To contact June or Rachel, please email their clerks Rob Leonard or Jess Street on [email protected] or [email protected] or by calling them on 01202 292102 or 0117 928 1520 respectively.