Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has issued his 14th 'View' dealing with care cases, and setting out two new initiatives: settlement conferences and the 'tandem model'. The President's View also includes annexes as to the initiatives proposed.
The number of new care cases continues to rise, seemingly relentlessly. Cafcass figures show that in the 12 months to March 2016 there were 12,781 new cases, an increase from 11,159 in the previous year (an increase of 14%). In the 4 months from April to July this year there were 4,959 new cases compared to 4,118 in the corresponding period in 2015 (an increase of 20%). The reasons for the increase are little understood and are currently being investigated. We must however plan on the basis that there will continue to be significant increases.
That is one reality. The other reality is that we are unlikely to see any increase in resources, judicial or otherwise.
Given the realities, we must continue to look for new, innovative and better ways of handling these cases, while never departing from the fundamentals, namely that:
I make quite clear: I will not countenance any departure from the fundamentally important principles which I sought to explain in Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s 47(5))  EWCA Civ 1146,  1 FLR 1035 and in Re A (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings)  EWFC 11,  1 FLR 1.
I propose in a future ‘View’ to deal with other ways in which we can and must improve how we deal with public law cases, for example, by continuing to expand the concept of the ‘problem solving court’ through extended use of such techniques as FDAC and PAUSE, and by reaping in the family court all the benefits of the digital online court which is key to the success of the entire court modernisation programme.
Here, I want to concentrate on two important initiatives.
Settlement conferences were pioneered in Canada, where all the indications are that they have been a success. They are, in principle, something that I support, which is why I encouraged HHJ de Haas to start a trial in Liverpool and supported the idea of a wider pilot in a number of other courts (see further HHJ de Haas’s update on the pilot at  1 FLR 1417). I attach, as Annexes 1, 2 and 3, documents, issued with my support and encouragement, which set out both the basis upon which the pilot is proceeding and how it is being evaluated.
I am aware that the pilot has met with a mixed response. On 1 July 2016, the Association of Lawyers for Children issued Guidance for its members, revised on 7 July 2016, which is attached as Annexe 4.
I feel it would be helpful to clarify a number of misconceptions.
First, I must stress that the pilots have my full support and that the judges taking part are volunteers. It is, therefore, a judicially-led initiative, as it was in Canada when the approach was first introduced over 15 years ago. Settlement conferences in public law cases are now an established part of the Canadian legal system. The Canadian model is being tested in the pilots to see if it can be adapted to our system.
Secondly, it is also important to stress that the paramountcy principle and the tandem model of representation of children apply just as much to settlement conferences in the pilot as to any other part of the public law system. It is an entirely voluntary and consensual process conducted in the presence of the parties’ lawyers with ample opportunity for advice to be given outside the process and for careful reflection by all parties before decisions are made.
During the course of the settlement conference the judge will hear from all parties on a without prejudice, confidential and legally privileged basis. If a settlement conference does not succeed in reaching agreement and there is a subsequent trial nothing disclosed at the settlement conference may be used at the trial which, moreover, will be not be heard by the judge who conducted the settlement conference. Where a child is a party the child’s solicitor and/or guardian will ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are made known.
The ethos of the settlement conference is not to pressure parties to settle but to explore whether the candour and confidentiality of the process can help to reach common ground. Judges do not, and in my view must not, address parties in the absence of their legal representatives. A question may arise as to whether a judge should see one party, together with their legal representatives, on their own and without the other parties or their representatives being present. In my view very great caution is needed. Only in exceptional circumstances would this be appropriate, and then only if all parties expressly agree to the judge proceeding in this way.
Thirdly, it is important to remember that the settlement conference approach is being piloted. I acknowledge, as I have said, that views on the merits of this approach are currently divided. The pilot is a genuine attempt to test whether the model can work as well in our system as it does in Canada.
The pilots will be evaluated through the collection of quantitative data and the conduct of qualitative research by specialist social researchers from MoJ Analytical Services. The findings will be shared with an advisory group following a similar approach to that taken during the pilot of the revised Public Law Outline in 2013/2014. This will enable lessons to be learned, challenges identified and areas of good practice shared so that the model can be refined and improved.
When the pilots come to be evaluated I will be looking closely to see whether the settlement conference approach compromises, in any way, the fundamental principles of our public law system such as the right to legal representation, Art 6 and 8 rights, the paramountcy principle and the importance of ensuring that the voice of the child is heard. I, and other members of the judiciary, will sit on the Advisory Group.
The ‘tandem’ model
The tandem model is fundamental to a fair and just care system. Only the tandem model can ensure that the child’s interests, wishes and feelings are correctly identified and properly represented. Without the tandem model the potential for injustice is much increased. I would therefore be strongly opposed to any watering down of this vital component of care proceedings.
This does not mean, however, that the practical operation of the tandem model should be immune from scrutiny. The tandem model requires that in every care case the child is represented by both a guardian and a solicitor. In some cases, the solicitor will instruct counsel, sometimes, in the very heaviest cases, two counsel, a junior and a QC. This, I emphasise, is as it should be. But we need to remember that all this costs money. I repeat in this context what I said in Re L (Procedure: Bundles: Translation)  EWFC 15,  1 FLR 1417, para :
‘I end with yet another plea for restraint in the expenditure of public funds. Public funds, whether those under the control of the LAA or those under the control of other public bodies, are limited, and likely in future to reduce rather than increase. It is essential that such public funds as are available for funding litigation in the Family Court and the Family Division are carefully husbanded and properly applied. It is no good complaining that public funds are available only for X and not for Y if money available for X is being squandered. Money should be spent only on what is “necessary” to enable the court to deal with the proceedings “justly”. If a task is not “necessary” – if it is unnecessary – why should litigants or their professional advisers expect public money to be made available? They cannot and they should not.’
The MoJ, with my support, is investigating whether there is scope for a reformed level of representation for children in public law cases and how a reformed model might work in practice. From my perspective, the focus of this is the question of whether, at certain stages in the proceedings and at certain type of hearing, there could properly be scope for dispensing with the attendance of some, or even, in some circumstances, all, of the child’s professional team. But, I emphasise: so far as I am concerned, none of this can be allowed to prejudice the fundamentals of the tandem model.
With my support, the MoJ will accordingly be conducting a data-collecting exercise in 12 courts. A second phase, also involving the judiciary, will explore how a reformed model of representation could work in practice.
Annexe 1 Settlement Conferences Guidance for parties May 2016
Annexe 2 Settlement ConferencesJudicial Guidance May 2016
Annexe 3 Letter dated 10 June 2016 from Dr Elizabeth Gibby Deputy Director MoJ A2J Strategy and Specialist Policy to the pilot DFJs
Annexe 4 Guidance to its members issued by the ALC on 1 July 2016 as revised on 7 July 2016
0330 161 1234