header-logo header-logo

Delays & drop in disposals at the family court

01 April 2022
Categories: Legal News , Family , Profession
printer mail-detail
Care and supervision cases are taking five weeks longer on average and 77% fail to meet the 26-week limit, according to the latest figures from the family court

Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for the fourth quarter in 2021 show care and supervision cases took 47 weeks on average to reach first disposal, up five weeks from the same period in 2020 and the highest average since 2012.

Fewer than a quarter (23%) met the 26-week limit set by the Children and Families Act 2014.

Overall, 17% fewer new cases across all case types were started in the quarter compared to the same period in 2020. This breaks down to 25% fewer matrimonial, 18% fewer adoption, 12% fewer private, 7% fewer public law and five per cent fewer domestic violence cases (despite reported incidences of domestic violence rising 6% in the year to March 2021).

The ONS considered the drop in matrimonial cases might be due to couples waiting for the introduction of no-fault divorce in April 2022.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Delays can themselves cause significant harm as well as uncertainty for the parties involved.

‘It has previously been estimated by the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) that it may take three years to return to pre-pandemic levels, which is a great cause for concern, particularly for cases that concern children and family matters. From the outset, we’ve said the UK government must maximise existing court capacity, boosting it through Nightingale courts to allow more in-person hearings to take place safely.

‘The UK government must ensure, so far as possible, that there are sufficient fee-paid and full-time judges to deal with existing and new caseloads.’

Boyce also highlighted the lack of any data on litigants in person (LiPs) in the latest statistics.

‘Members working in family law continue to report about the high number of LiPs in the court system,’ she said.

‘In most cases, LiPs are unable to afford representation and have no choice but to represent themselves. This impacts court time and resources and make the provision of representation under legal aid contracts a cost-effective solution to the backlogs.

‘It would also enable the most efficient use of court capacity across the country. Although this is not within the control of the courts, it is a key concern that should continue to be raised by the sector.’


Categories: Legal News , Family , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll