T (A Child), Re

The judgment illustrates appellate handling of procedural complaints in child proceedings at the permission stage. A refusal to adjourn lies within the judge’s broad discretion where the hearing can proceed on the material then available, and a later offer of representation does not itself establish error or real injustice. Leave to issue fresh residence proceedings may be refused where the application is plainly hopeless and strategic. The child’s welfare governs disclosure of objective records to the child’s medical team. A summary costs assessment made in a party’s absence may properly be reconsidered, particularly where the judge accepted the bill without deduction.

The mother applied for permission to appeal orders dated 19 January 2001 made by His Honour Judge Barnett, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court in the Family Division. The orders continued a restricted contact regime, refused leave to issue residence order proceedings, permitted disclosure of records to the child’s medical team, and summarily assessed costs against the mother.

The mother had been unrepresented at relevant hearings and argued that adjournments should have been granted to enable her to obtain representation. The central issues were whether the judge had erred in refusing the adjournments, refusing leave to issue the residence proceedings, making the disclosure order without notice, and summarily assessing costs.

Disposition. The applications for permission to appeal were adjourned for an on-notice oral hearing. The court directed that the mother serve and file a succinct record of her efforts to obtain representation and warned of a possible costs risk. There was no order as to costs. Permission to appeal was not finally determined.

1. As to the order continuing the restricted contact regime, Lord Justice Thorpe considered the criticism of the refusal to adjourn potentially significant because information about the mother’s solicitors and legal-aid application had not been before the judge. Although the information supplied on appeal was uncorroborated, the court considered that the case should be reconsidered on notice so that its management contained no procedural blemish.
2. As to the mother’s application for leave to issue residence order proceedings, the judge had acted within a broad discretion. The application had been issued strategically and was plainly hopeless. The refusal of an adjournment and the dismissal of the application disclosed no error.
3. The governing standard for disclosure of objective records to the child’s medical team was the child’s welfare. The court considered that properly informing the medical team was likely to advance that welfare, although the order had been made without notice and could therefore be reconsidered at the on-notice hearing.
4. The summary assessment of costs also warranted reconsideration. In the mother’s absence, she had been unable to challenge individual items in the estimate. If the judge proceeded by summary assessment, he should not simply accept the bill without deduction; assessment by a costs judge was a possible alternative.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for permission to appeal against the orders dated 19 January 2001 were adjourned for an on-notice hearing. No order as to costs.
• Family Division of the High Court: His Honour Judge Barnett, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, continued a restricted contact regime, refused leave to issue residence order proceedings, permitted disclosure to the child’s medical team, and summarily assessed costs at £1,177.38.