S (Children), Re

Routine directions to obtain a Children and Family Reporter’s report and list a matter for further directions are ordinary case-management decisions. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where the lower judge has considered a party’s concerns and adopted a sensible course directed to a possible consensual resolution or, if disagreement remains, a final hearing. Concerns about the impartiality of the reporting service do not themselves justify permission to appeal where the judge has addressed them and sought to preserve confidence in the process.

Mr S applied out of time for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Fletcher in the Wolverhampton County Court. The order directed a Children and Family Reporter’s report and listed the proceedings for further directions. Mr S challenged the use of the CAFCASS service, alleging that it was biased against him and that he lacked confidence in its officers. The respondent did not attend or appear. The central issue was whether the routine directions disclosed any proper basis for appellate intervention.

1. Time and permission. Although the application was out of time, the Court treated it as filed in time because Mr S had attempted to issue appeal proceedings in the county court and procedural confusion had contributed to the delay.
2. Nature of the lower court’s directions. The order required a report from the Children and Family Reporter and listed the case for further directions. Judge Fletcher had expressly taken account of Mr S’s concerns about CAFCASS. His approach balanced the need for assistance from the service with the need to maintain confidence in the proceedings, including the possibility that a new reporter would be used.
3. Appellate intervention. The directions were conventional and sensible case-management decisions. They were intended to move the proceedings towards a consensual resolution or, if disagreement continued, towards statements and a final hearing. There was no conceivable basis for appellate interference. The application was misconceived and hopeless. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On an application for permission to appeal and an extension of time, the Court treated the application as in time but refused permission: [2001] EWCA Civ 1505.
2. Wolverhampton County Court: His Honour Judge Fletcher directed a Children and Family Reporter’s report and listed the case for further directions.