header-logo header-logo

Cancelled hearings costing ex-couples dear

29 September 2021
Issue: 7950 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Covid-19
printer mail-detail
Last-minute cancellations of court hearings to agree financial settlements or child contact arrangements are leaving ex-couples facing ‘ruinous costs’, family lawyers have warned

Osbornes Law’s family lawyers say they are seeing increasing numbers of clients whose final hearings are removed from court listings with days to spare, leaving them to pay thousands of pounds in costs. The cancellations are due to a shortage of judges and the backlogs in the family courts. However, the couples affected can expect to wait at least six months for a new listing, leaving them in limbo.

Claire Andrews, family lawyer at Osbornes Law, said: ‘Going through the divorce courts is already a very stressful experience―most are acrimonious couples who have already exhausted all other options.

‘Gearing up for a final court hearing takes months of preparation and barristers must be briefed and paid for their work, often two weeks in advance. While postponements used to be relatively common for lower-level hearings, we are now seeing more and more final hearings cancelled with just one or two days to spare. This runs up huge costs for clients who are still no closer to resolving their disputes.

‘This can be particularly tough for those who are pursuing a higher earning ex for a financial settlement but have small means themselves. I have seen some clients concerned they will run out of money but have little choice but to continue.’

While it is possible to recover some money from HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) in these circumstances, the process is complex and requires an application be made with a detailed breakdown of costs. Moreover, if the court finds every effort was made to source a judge then reimbursement of any costs is unlikely, as HMCTS will state ‘judicial availability is not in the hands of the court administration office’.

Some hearings are categorised as ‘at risk’ which means they can’t be guaranteed, removing any possibility of HMCTS reimbursing costs.

Issue: 7950 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Covid-19
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll