The first thing to bear in mind is that courts are updating their processes and guidance, sometimes daily at present, so you should check with the relevant court to ensure you are complying with their procedures. For further information on changes to court processes and procedures generally and

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) (as amended) contains a mechanism enabling owners of leasehold houses to acquire the freehold of their property. It differs from the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LHRUDA 1993) as those provisions relate to premises within buildings that have been subdivided—normally buildings that contain flats. See: Individual enfranchisement and lease extensions of houses—overview. LRA 1967 contains a number of qualifying requirements. The relevant property to be enfranchised must be a ‘house’ within the meaning of LRA 1967, s 2; a building designed or adapted for living in. ‘Living in’ requires a degree of permanency, though this is a question

If a party has failed to comply with a direction to file and serve a witness statement, the party awaiting the witness statement should consider where the parties are in the court timetable. If there is a directions hearing (ie a dispute resolution appointment or pre-trial review) in advance of the hearing in which the evidence of the parties will be a live issue, the usual approach in practice is to ask orally at that directions hearing for a penal notice to be attached to the new deadline for the witness statement of the party who is in breach of the direction. This approach has the benefit of saving the cost of an application for further directions and avoids the need for

This responds considers who can prepare a report directed under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). ChA 1989, s 37 provides that where, in any family proceedings in which a question arises in respect of the welfare of any child, it appears to the court that it may be appropriate for a care or supervision order to be made with respect to the child, the court may direct the ‘appropriate authority’ to undertake an investigation of the child’s circumstances. ChA 1989, s 37(5) provides that the local authority (LA) named in the direction for the report must be the

When a court is dealing with proceedings for a child arrangements orders (CAO) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), the court must at all stages of the proceedings consider whether domestic violence is raised as an issue either by the parties or by Cafcass. The court must consider the relevance of any allegations and give directions, if appropriate, to enable contested factual and welfare issues to be tried as soon as possible, and fairly, by way of a fact-finding hearing. Fact-finding hearings are designed to consider the allegations that are relevant to ensure that any CAO made by the court

It is possible that the court within family law proceedings would allow a party to rely on a covert recording of another adult party as evidence at a fact-finding hearing. In the public law case of Medway Council v A (Learning Disability; Foster Placement), the court considered the admissibility of covert recordings of a foster carer. The recordings were not provided to the court until just one week before the hearing. Despite the late provision of the evidence, however, and the way in which they had been obtained, the court did allow the recordings to be used as evidence. HHJ Lazarus observed: ‘In the light of Re A 2015 and Re J 2015,

The court has general powers of case management under Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, 4.1 and will be conscious of the need to case manage robustly in order to avoid undue delay for the child and to ensure that an appropriate share of the court’s resources are dedicated to any particular case. A court may legitimately reach a decision prior to a final hearing that some options are unrealistic and should be discounted. Any such step should be taken carefully, however. There is real risk of procedural irregularity and unfairness if the court rules out a parent’s case at an interim

A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity (section 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005)). A person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time they are unable to make a decision for themselves in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. Where there is significant doubt as to whether a party to proceedings lacks capacity the proceedings should not continue until that doubt has been resolved by the court. The court itself

An application for a child arrangements order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) is made using Form C100. In the event that the applicant alleges that the child who is the subject of the application has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, any harm as a result of the conduct of the respondent, the applicant should also complete Form C1A (Allegations of harm and domestic violence (Supplemental information form)). Form C100 has a section for the applicant to provide the court with the address of the respondent for the purpose of service. The court then relies on that information to serve a copy of the application, together with notice of proceedings, on the respondent. If the respondent is with the child, and the applicant is unaware both of the location of the child and of the respondent, the applicant should complete Form

This Q&A considers a situation where the guardian has been appointed within the private law children proceedings, rather than a guardian appointed pursuant to section 5 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) on the death of a father who had in his favour a lives with order. In the latter scenario the appointment of a guardian in that manner would give the guardian parental responsibility and thus allow an application to be made under ChA 1989, s 8 for an order in respect of the children. Rather, this response proceeds on the basis that the guardian in question is a guardian appointed under ChA 1989, s 41 whose role together with the appointed solicitor is to represent the child in the private law proceedings. Such guardians are commonly termed ‘Rule 16.4 guardians’

It is sadly often the case that in private law children proceedings, a parent seeking contact has, or is alleged to have, a problem with alcohol and/or drugs. The scientific basis of hair strand testing is now well-established. In LB Richmond v B & W & B & CB, Moylan J gave lengthy guidance as to the evidential value of hair strand testing for alcohol, noting the need for caution when such tests are being interpreted and relied upon. The technology utilised since that time has improved significantly and it is now routine for such tests to be ordered (sometimes in conjunction with blood tests) where there is an issue as to drug or alcohol use. The purpose of such testing is to ensure insofar as

It is possible to seek to exclude a witness statement within private law children proceedings. The court can be invited to exercise its powers under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 22.1 to control the evidence, which can include excluding evidence (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 22.1(2)). Reasons to seek to exclude evidence can include the evidence being irrelevant to the issues that the court needs to determine (for example, a general character reference that does not touch on any of the allegations is unlikely to be of relevance in a fact-finding hearing). This is entirely in keeping with the court’s ability to give directions as to the issues on which it requires evidence (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 22.1(1)(a)). Also, where the evidence has been obtained illegally (for example, adducing