5.  The first applicant's daughter, who is the second applicant, was born on 6 March 1989. 6.  On 9 September 1997 the first applicant took the second applicant to see their general practitioner because he and his wife were concerned about what appeared to be bruising on her legs. A clotting test was carried out but it showed no abnormality. 7.  On 25 February 1998 the first applicant took the second applicant back to the general practitioner because her swimming teacher had expressed concern about the marks on her legs. The first applicant asked for a referral to hospital and an appointment was made for 17 March 1998 with Dr W., a consultant paediatrician. 8.  On 15 March 1998 the second applicant hurt herself in the genital area while riding her bike. She complained to her mother of hurting between her legs. Her mother did not examine her and she did not tell the first applicant of the incident. 9.  On 17 March 1998 the first applicant took the second applicant to the appointment with Dr W. Dr W. said that the bruising did not appear to be a skin disease and admitted the second applicant to hospital for further examination. The first applicant had to go to work but before leaving the hospital he told Dr W. that his wife would arrive soon and there should be no further examination or tests until she came and gave any necessary consent. 10.  When the first applicant's wife arrived one hour later, she found that a sample of the second applicant's blood had been taken for testing, photographs had been taken of her legs and the local authority had been notified. A social worker informed her that Dr W. thought the second applicant had been abused. The first applicant's wife then gave consent for a further examination. Dr W. and a police surgeon examined the second applicant's legs and genitalia. The second applicant was given no explanation for the examinations and she was not questioned about the allegations of abuse. Following the examination, Dr W. informed the first applicant's wife that the second applicant had been sexually abused and that it had probably been going on for eight months on account of the bruising. The social worker interviewed the second applicant generally, but asked no direct questions about sexual abuse. No record was made of the interview. During the interview the social workers told the first applicant's wife to ask the first applicant and their eldest son to move out of the family home until further investigations had taken place. At this point she recalled that the second applicant had “hurt between her legs” while on her bicycle. She informed the social worker, who said that she would pass the information on to the doctor. 11.  At 17.30 that evening, when the first applicant and his wife attempted to visit the second applicant on the ward, a nurse told them that there were orders that the first applicant should not be allowed to see her. This exchange was witnessed by other people on the ward. News was passed through the community and reached acquaintances in India. The following day, hospital staff were correctly informed that there could be no restrictions on visitors. The first applicant was thereafter permitted to visit the second applicant in hospital, although all visits were supervised on account of the suspicion that she had been sexually abused. 12.  On 18 March 1998 the first applicant's wife informed Dr W. that the second applicant had “hurt between her legs” on her bicycle. Dr W. told her that there was no doubt the second applicant had been sexually abused and advised her that if she did not accept it, there was a risk that her other children would be taken into care. 13.  On the same day two social workers visited the applicants' home. The applicant's wife asked for a second opinion on the cause of the bruising but the social workers told her that they saw no point in obtaining a second opinion. They did not, however, insist that the first applicant should leave the family home; instead it was arranged that the first applicant's wife should sleep in the room with her daughters. 14.  On 21 March 1998 the first applicant's wife noticed that the second applicant had marks on her hands. An appointment was made for the second applicant to see a dermatologist. 15.  On 24 March 1998 the dermatologist reported that the marks on the second applicant's legs were caused by vasculitis. 16.  On 27 March 1998 the second applicant was diagnosed with Schamberg's disease, a rare condition of the capillaries which is manifested by the eruption of purple patches on the skin. She was discharged from hospital. Dr W. wrote a letter to the first applicant and his wife which stated that there was insufficient evidence to say that the second applicant had been sexually abused and that the first applicant should no longer be considered to be implicated in the sexual or physical abuse of his daughter. 17.  The first applicant and his wife were unhappy with what had happened and made a formal complaint to the NHS Trust. The Trust set up an Independent Review Panel with two Assessors who were consultant paediatricians experienced in child abuse cases. The Panel report concluded that Dr W. had been right to admit the second applicant to hospital but found that she had acted too quickly in carrying out examinations. The report further noted that examinations and photographs should not have been taken while no parent was present; that while Dr W. was not to blame for misdiagnosing the bruises, she should have monitored them and obtained a dermatologist's opinion as a matter of urgency; that the first applicant should have been properly consulted and interviewed; and that Dr W. had attached far too much importance to the bruising, neglecting other relevant information available from the first applicant, his wife and the family doctor. Finally, the report noted that Dr W. had, without convincing explanation, failed to write to the first applicant with an explanation and an apology. 18.  On 9 March 2001 the applicants brought proceedings in negligence against the local authority and hospital trust claiming compensation for personal injury and financial loss. Both were legally aided. 19.  On 22 November 2002 the County Court judge struck out the claims, finding that no duty of care arose between the local authority and the first applicant and that the hospital but not the local authority had owed a duty of care to the second applicant. The applicants appealed. Their appeals were joined to those of a number of other appellants. 20.  On 31 July 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the second applicant's appeal and allowed her claim to proceed against the local authority as well as the hospital.  The Legal Services Commission, however, withdrew the second applicant's legal aid certificate on the basis that it was no longer reasonable for her to receive legal aid because the likely costs were disproportionate to the value of the claim. On 4 April 2006 the second applicant's appeal against the withdrawal was dismissed by an independent Funding Review Committee, which agreed that the costs of pursuing the claim considerably outweighed any likely award of damages. 21.  On 31 July 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant's appeal together with the appeals of the other appellants. The first applicant and the other appellants were granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. 22.  The House of Lords gave judgment in 2005 (see JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and Ors [2005] 2 AC 373). The question before the House of Lords in JD was whether the parent of a minor child falsely and negligently said to have abused or harmed the child could recover common law damages for negligence against a doctor or social worker who, discharging professional functions, made the false and negligent statement, if the suffering of psychiatric injury by the parent was a foreseeable result of making it and such injury had in fact been suffered by the parent. The House of Lords concluded (Lord Bingham of Cornhill dissenting) that there were cogent reasons of public policy for holding that no common law duty of care should be owed to the parents and it would not be just or reasonable to impose such a duty.