header-logo header-logo

03 March 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8015 / Categories: Features , Family , CPR , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil & family proceedings: where do the twain meet?

113330
David Burrows delves into the origins of the Family Procedure Rules 2010: how do they overlap with their civil counterparts?
  • Key examples of crossover between the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

Parts of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) cannot be understood without reference to their parallel progenitors in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998). Examples of this crossover between sets of rules follow; but first, a little history. For reasons which remain mystifying, the committee that set up CPR 1998 decreed that they should not apply to family proceedings (CPR 2.1(2)). Family proceedings were ghettoised and got their own rules 12 years later, namely FPR 2010. Between 1999 and 2011, parties to family proceedings had to continue with the older civil rules (ie Rules of Supreme Court 1965 etc). Yet, both sets of rules regulate the same statute and common law in civil and family proceedings, though in different factual contexts

Many of the CPR 1998

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll