header-logo header-logo

13 January 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7448 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Meet the new FPR!

Part two: David Burrows offers further thought on the Family Proceedings Rules 2010

The previous article (NLJ, 7 January 2011, p 12) looked in outline at the structure of the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) (SI 2010/2955) This article looks at the procedures under the new rules and at the influences upon them of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998).

It attempts also a few thoughts towards a philosophy for family proceedings rules: not a factor which was obviously attempted by the FPR 2010 rule-makers. They had nothing akin to the extensive consultation carried out by Lord Wolfe—himself one of the late twentieth century’s leading judicial/jurisprudential minds—and to the two reports prepared by Lord Wolfe’s committee.

In fairness to the rule-makers, they were set an impossible task with very limited resources. Civil proceedings deal procedurally with a linear process: a claim is issued and proceeds logically by steps provided for in CPR 1998 which are common to most claims, to a judgment and court order. The application in family proceedings under

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll