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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll