header-logo header-logo

Remote justice poses painful dilemmas

05 May 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Family
printer mail-detail
Judges must be ‘hard-headed’ when deciding which cases to prioritise for remote hearings and which can wait, the senior family judge has said

Giving judgment in the second welfare of children case to be appealed on the issue of remote hearings since the lockdown began, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said judges must ‘be alert to ensure that the dynamics and demands of the remote process do not impinge on the fundamental principles… experience shows that remote hearings place additional, and in some cases, considerable burdens on the participants’.

The case, B (Children) (Remote hearing: interim care order) [2020] EWCA Civ 584, concerned a boy wrongly removed from his grandmother’s home and placed in foster care after a telephone hearing. Sir Andrew said the case should have been adjourned but that ‘no doubt partly because of the exigencies of the remote process, there was a loss of perspective in relation to the need for an immediate decision’. The grandmother had no opportunity to file evidence, was faced with an order she had no chance of challenging, and the boy was taken into care within an hour.  ‘It must have been utterly bewildering for them both,’ Sir Andrew said.

The previous appeal concerned an adoption case involving six children where the father did not feel confident at using technology, A (Children) (Remote hearing: care and placement orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583.

The children’s guardian contended that the eight-day hearing with multiple witnesses should go ahead remotely on the basis further delay would jeopardise the youngest children’s chances of being adopted. However, the Court of Appeal adjourned the case.

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll