header-logo header-logo

15 August 2014
Issue: 7619 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family law—Practice—Case management

Re W (Children) [2014] EWFC 22, [2014] All ER (D) 25 (Aug)

Family Court, Sir James Munby P, 25 Jul 2014. 

Parties in cases in the Family Court are not permitted to amend a timetable fixed by the court without the prior approval of the court.

The case concerned care proceedings commenced by Bristol City Council (Bristol). A timetable was set by a case management order, which contained the usual requirement that “all parties must immediately inform the court…if any party or person fails to comply with any part of this order”. Bristol failed to file and serve its final evidence and care plan in accordance with the timetable. As a result, the guardian’s report was not available to the court and other parties until the day before the issues resolution hearing was listed to take place. It was, therefore, impossible for the advocates to comply with the requirements of para 6.4 of PD27A (the “Bundles” Practice Direction) with regard to the lodging of preliminary documents. Bristol explained that, at the advocates meeting,

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll