Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Latest articles
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
View all articles

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, 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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from