header-logo header-logo

Civil & family proceedings: where do the twain meet?

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll