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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll