Managing proceedings online

The digitalisation programme set out by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) aims to increase the efficiency of family proceedings. Amendments have been made, and continue to be made to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) to provide that certain applications and proceedings are to proceed by electronic means, ie online rather than on paper.

See Practice Note: Online family proceedings toolkit which brings together various resources and documents associated with the HMCTS online system and online proceedings, including signposting to provisions in the FPR 2010, pilot schemes that are in operation in the Family Court, Lexis+® UK Practice Notes and HMCTS guidance available to assist practitioners dealing with proceedings online.

Online divorce procedure

FPR 2010, PD 41A (Proceedings by electronic means: certain proceedings for a matrimonial order) came into effect on 6 April 2020 and sets out the procedure by which, in the circumstances provided for in the Practice Direction, an application for a divorce may proceed by electronic means. FPR 2010, PD 41A sets out the modifications that are made to the FPR 2010 when the application is made via the online service.

On 6 May 2018, the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents