Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

President's Address

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
Slug : president-s-address
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 11, 2006, 08:00 AM
Article ID : 86311

Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, addressed the Resolution conference in April 2006. The President's overall purpose was, first, to institute and push forward the strategy of cascading down within the unified administration, as recommended by the Judicial Resources Review and accepted by the senior judiciary, so that cases were heard at the lowest level available and appropriate to deal with them. Secondly, it was necessary to achieve greater flexibility in distributing work between the family judges in the county courts, district judges and the under-used family magistrates in the family proceedings courts (FPCs).

In order to achieve the necessary movement of the work down the system, the necessary steps to achieve that were as follows.

  • 1. A judicial working party was taking a critical look at the entire work of the family courts with a view to re-categorisation, where necessary and appropriate, to allow work previously reserved to High Court judges to be heard at county court level.
  • 2. An expansion of district judges' jurisdiction for a number of district judges selected and ticketed for the purpose, to enable them to hear care proceedings as well as giving directions.
  • 3. Encouraging the specialisation of magistrates who sit in FPCs to build up a cadre of practised and confident chairs better able to approach and adopt the judicial method available in a single judge court.
  • 4. Remove the requirement for FPCs to give immediate written reasons for every decision taken.
  • 5. Encourage the use of district judges (magistrates' courts) in family work.

So far as care cases were concerned, the President's proposals were set out in the Thematic Review of the Public Law Protocol (see [2006] Fam Law 237 and www.familylaw.co.uk, Newswatch -The Care Proceedings Review and the Protocol" for the full review) produced in time for submission, to the joint DCA/ DfES Child Care Proceedings Review. Broadly the proposals were for:

  • (1) a pre-proceedings protocol covering the procedure to be followed and work to be done by local authorities before proceedings were issued;
  • (2) the directions hearing itself at which all aspects of the case were, so far as possible, reviewed and assessed in advance, the issues analysed and directions given, based on the agenda of;
  • (3) an overall case plan which the local authority would have been obliged to produce and calculate in advance with the other parties, in relation to which submissions could be made at the directions hearing.

See May [2006] Fam Law for the full news article.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from