header-logo header-logo

01 April 2022
Categories: Legal News , Family , Profession
printer mail-detail

Delays & drop in disposals at the family court

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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll