header-logo header-logo

Family law—Practice—Case management

15 August 2014
Issue: 7619 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Re W (Children) [2014] EWFC 22, [2014] All ER (D) 25 (Aug)

Family Court, Sir James Munby P, 25 Jul 2014. 

Parties in cases in the Family Court are not permitted to amend a timetable fixed by the court without the prior approval of the court.

The case concerned care proceedings commenced by Bristol City Council (Bristol). A timetable was set by a case management order, which contained the usual requirement that “all parties must immediately inform the court…if any party or person fails to comply with any part of this order”. Bristol failed to file and serve its final evidence and care plan in accordance with the timetable. As a result, the guardian’s report was not available to the court and other parties until the day before the issues resolution hearing was listed to take place. It was, therefore, impossible for the advocates to comply with the requirements of para 6.4 of PD27A (the “Bundles” Practice Direction) with regard to the lodging of preliminary documents. Bristol explained that, at the advocates meeting,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll