header-logo header-logo

Under new rule (4)

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

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, but

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll