data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a961b/a961b3449f7152cca7e7c728617090377d869690" alt=""
Chandler: No option but to adjourn
An exasperated Family Court judge has adjourned a final financial remedies hearing, saying the case was in such a “disordered and chaotic state that it is simply impossible to proceed in a fair way”.
Recorder Chandler KC said that, while the court was “used to dealing with cases that have not been prepared properly… even in the family court, there comes a limit”.
He went on: “And that limit has been grossly exceeded in this case.”
The application for financial remedies was issued nearly two years ago, since when there have been seven directions hearings.
The applicant wife was represented by solicitors and counsel, but the respondents – the husband, his mother, his sister, and the executor of his late father’s estate – were unrepresented.
None of the respondents were at court on Wednesday at the allocated start time of 10am. The judge delayed and the husband and his mother arrived 45 minutes later.
Before then, the judge recounted, he received an email from a paralegal at Solidum Solicitors to say they had been instructed late to represent the husband’s mother and it had not been possible to retain counsel for that day. As a result, the solicitors were unable to attend court that day but sought relief from sanction and said they would be there the following day.
Recorder Chandler said: “At this stage, I make no finding of fact as the actions of any of the respondents, save to record that there is an arguable case that one or more of them have deliberately sought to frustrate this litigation, by not responding to orders, failing to disclose documents and generally dragging their feet to the inconvenience of the wife…
“While the paralegal who wrote the above email couched her message in apologetic terms, I consider it quite extraordinary that any court should receive a message to the effect that a lawyer proposes to attend mid-way through a final hearing.”
While it had “unquestionably” been a difficult case for the wife and her advisers, there was also “no excuse” for their disregard for procedural rules in preparing for the hearing, the recorder went on.
He cited the filing of two bundles over the previous two days totalling 2,747 pages when permission had not been sought to lodge a bundle in excess of 350 pages, missing statements of case, no open proposals, and counsel’s lodging his position statement at 9.16pm on the night before the hearing, without any explanation as to why it was so late.
“This is bad enough in itself,” said the judge. “It is a particularly egregious breach in this case where the other parties are litigants in person.
“However badly they might have behaved in this litigation (which is in dispute), in my judgment, the applicant’s advisers are under a heightened obligation to ensure the necessary position statement is at the very least filed on time, i.e. by 11am on the day before the hearing.”
Then counsel filed further documentation on the morning of the hearing “which, if anything, only add to the general state of disarray”.
Recorder Chandler said that, even if he could “bend the rules” to allow all of this, there was a “lack of clarity” as to the legal basis of the wife’s case. He gave her advisers “one final opportunity to clarify” it by serving a skeleton argument within 14 days.
He concluded that the wife’s breaches of the various procedural rules were “so significant that I have no option but to adjourn the final hearing”.
No party applied for costs and, with the applicant legally aided and the respondents are all litigants in person, the judge said: “I am unpersuaded that any purpose would be served by making a costs order but in other circumstances I would be making a costs order against the applicant, potentially on the indemnity basis.”
The Judge is absolutely correct, the entire court ad.inistration system is not fit for purpose since they have closed the court counter service and have become a faceless justice system. In criminal courts its seems to be the norm for counsel to turn up for the defendant and say he was instructed 24 hours ago and had not had the time to peruse the papers, here the fault lies with his clerk who are the most powerful. unrepresented litigants in person are usually handed skeleton arguments as they are entering a courtroom for a hearing. The court administration needs to employ competent staff and go back to the court counter system for public use as present online and telephone system is not fit for purpose.