The Court of Appeal clarifies approach to the test for appointment of intermediaries (Re M (A Child: Intermediaries)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?

Article summary

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal held that in a number of previous decisions, and in guidance issued by the President of the Family Division, an improper gloss had been placed on the wording of the test for the appointment of an intermediary under Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) and FPR 2010, PD 3AA. The court found that necessity means necessity and needs no gloss and that the court at first instance had been wrong to refuse a mother in care proceedings an intermediary for a fact-finding hearing and her appeal was therefore allowed. The court allowed the appeal on its merits and looked at the development of the law on the test in some previous recent decisions. Rhiannon Lloyd, barrister and arbitrator at 4PB, examines the issues.