I have encountered several judges who insist in non-financial remedy consent order cases to undertakings by the parties to the court being given personally to the judge with an appropriate verbal warning as to consequences of breach being administered. In view of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) paras 2.3 and 2.4, is this stance justified?
The relevant provisions are to be found in FPR Pt 37. The effect of rr 37.4(4), 37.7 and 37.9(2), read with PD37A, paras 2.1-2.3, is that any undertaking or order containing an undertaking must be served on the person giving it (subject to the power to dispense with service). Except where the undertaking is contained in a judgment or order, the form of undertaking must contain a notice setting out the consequences of breach. Although not expressly stated, where an undertaking is contained in a judgment or order, the court will need to be satisfied that the party concerned understands the consequences.
An undertaking to which PD37A, paras 2.1-2.3 applies may be accepted without personal attendance provided that these provisions are strictly complied with. However, the most common use
