David Burrows investigates the “gap procedures” under the new FPR
Six recent articles on the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) have described what is in the rules (see end). But what has been left out? What should be there but has been overlooked? It will be difficult for parties—especially for the increasing numbers of litigants in person—to define how to proceed where a procedural requirement has been left out. What is to be done where the rules are silent or give no procedural help, where there is a gap in the rules?
This article looks at these “gap procedures”. Is it a matter for the court’s discretion (as the Ministry of Justice will say) as to how the gaps are filled; or is a judge required to look elsewhere for guidance as to the law?
The Court of Appeal had referred to the problem even before the rules came into effect. Goldstone v Goldstone and ors [2011] EWCA Civ 39, [2011] All ER (D) 218 (Jan) proceeded under the old rules. There the question arose in ancillary relief proceedings as to by
