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, but for reasons which are not explained, FPRC has reversed

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll