S (A Child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal in child-arrangements proceedings, the court may refuse permission while recording agreed steps to obtain further evidence and preserve effective case management below. Such a refusal does not determine the substantive arrangements for the child. Future management may remain with the lower court, including provision for a deferred substantive hearing.

The father applied for permission to appeal from an order made by Mr Recorder Philips in Bradford County Court on 27 September 2001. The order provided for trial meetings between the father and the child, followed by a review before Judge Cliffe on 15 January 2002. The application had effectively operated as a stay, so no further developments had occurred.

At the hearing, the parties addressed criticisms of the recorder’s reasoning and agreed arrangements for obtaining medical, psychological and further expert evidence. The central issue was whether permission should be granted and how the proceedings should be progressed pending the lower court’s further management.

1. Permission refused. The Court of Appeal concluded the proceedings by refusing permission to appeal. It did not determine the substantive child-arrangements issues or finally rule on the criticisms made of the recorder’s reasoning.
2. Agreed evidence-gathering. The court considered it sensible to proceed on the basis of agreements reached during argument. The mother’s cardiac specialist was to provide an urgent medical history and opinion on her current condition. Dr Bhatti-Ali, a Punjabi-speaking clinical psychologist, was to receive a joint instruction and arrange to see the parties. Dr Kerry was to re-appraise the father on the basis of the concessions about misconduct made at the first stage of the split hearing, rather than solely on the father’s earlier account.
3. Case management below. Future management was reserved to Judge Cliffe. The Bradford County Court was to be informed that the January fixture would probably be a directions hearing and that time would be needed for a deferred substantive hearing.
4. The formal order was an order refusing permission to appeal, with assessment of costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Bradford County Court order of 27 September 2001 was refused. The lower court’s future management directions were preserved and supplemented by agreed evidence-gathering arrangements.