header-logo header-logo

15 August 2014
Issue: 7619 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family law—Practice—Case management

Re W (Children) [2014] EWFC 22, [2014] All ER (D) 25 (Aug)

Family Court, Sir James Munby P, 25 Jul 2014. 

​Parties in cases in the Family Court are not permitted to amend a timetable fixed by the court without the prior approval of the court.

The case concerned care proceedings commenced by Bristol City Council (Bristol). A timetable was set by a case management order, which contained the usual requirement that “all parties must immediately inform the court…if any party or person fails to comply with any part of this order”. Bristol failed to file and serve its final evidence and care plan in accordance with the timetable. As a result, the guardian’s report was not available to the court and other parties until the day before the issues resolution hearing was listed to take place. It was, therefore, impossible for the advocates to comply with the requirements of para 6.4 of PD27A (the “Bundles” Practice Direction) with regard to the lodging of preliminary documents. Bristol explained that, at the advocates meeting, it had been agreed that there should be a family meeting.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll