header-logo header-logo

31 May 2012 / Dj John Doel
Issue: 7516 / Categories: Features , Public , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

A time bomb?

The clock is ticking on the debate over court attendance, says DJ John Doel

The Family Advocacy Scheme introduced by the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2011 (SI 2011/1027) has been with us since 9 May 2011. It dictates how much you will be paid for publicly-funded family labour. In particular, it sets a fixed-fee for attendance at court for an interim hearing. The duration of the hearing is calculated from the time at which it was listed to commence. Attendances of longer than one hour attract a higher rate.

Provoking a riot

Advocates are now routinely asking district judges and family magistrates to order them to attend at a time earlier than the listed time of the case in order, they say, to take instructions and prepare their client. Enforcement of such a direction may not become an issue. Any failure to observe such a direction, while not amounting to a contempt of court, would incur the wrath of the court and a judge may feel inclined to commence the hearing at the listed time, even

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll