header-logo header-logo

05 May 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7464 / Categories: Features , Family , Costs
printer mail-detail

Under new rule (4)

David Burrows examines costs & appeals under the Family Procedure Rules 2010

One of the more unfortunate claims made for the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) is that they promote something akin to a family court (as first proposed by the 1974 Finer report on single parent families). If anything these rules push that family law ideal still further away; and the costs (FPR 2010 Pt 28) and appeals (Pt 30) provisions illustrate this particularly starkly in their contrast between Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) straightforwardness and Family Procedure Rules Committee (FPRC) muddled thinking at the edges.

Parts 28 and 30 respectively incorporate CPR 1998 or are derived from them. but as soon as the rule drafting strays far from CPR 1998, the litigant is mired in an un-family court-like slough (the need of a layperson to understand these rules must be born always in mind).

Costs rules

Many parts of FPR 2010 are derived verbatim from CPR 1998,

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll