header-logo header-logo

11 March 2020 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7878 / Categories: Procedure & practice , Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 13 March 2020

Family Rules, OK! 
 

 

Family fare: first course

 

There’s impacting stuff for sneaks, the costs reckless and family practitioners (not mutually exclusive) out of the Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2020 (SI 2020/135). None, however, are likely to be too exercised by the end, not literally, of justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks who join the mob of the all-powerful justices’ legal advisers.

As from 6 April 2020, the same scheme for communications with the court as has been applied by the CPR (see 169 NLJ 7833, p13) is lifted and extended to family proceedings. If the communication contains any representation on a matter of substance or procedure, it must be copied to the other party or their representatives and state on its face that this is being done. Unless otherwise directed, a non-compliant communication will be returned without being considered by the court and with a brief explanation. Subject to hearing from the parties, the court may also impose sanctions or exercise other case management powers. The exemptions?

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll