E (Child), Re

A trial judge has a particularly wide discretion when making directions for the preparation and management of a case. The Court of Appeal will almost never review such a case-management decision, provided it falls within the ambit of that discretion. An application for permission to appeal a directions order is misconceived where the order merely facilitates preparation for a later hearing and has subsequently become spent. The Court should not grant permission to appeal an incidental directions order which can no longer usefully be undone.

Mr and Mrs L sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Hugh Jones on 30 March 2001 in proceedings concerning their application for contact with a child. The order was made at a directions hearing and required further statements, reports and documents to be served. It also regulated the filing of further evidence and restrained dissemination of the material.

The applicants challenged the judge’s refusal to permit witness summonses against approximately 27 proposed witnesses. Permission was initially refused on paper, and the application was renewed. By the time of the renewed application, the final hearing had taken place and the contact applications had been refused, with a direction under section 91(14) preventing further contact applications without leave. The issue was whether permission should be granted to challenge the earlier directions order.

1. Application refused. The renewed applications for permission to appeal the order of 30 March 2001 were manifestly misconceived.
2. A directions order made in preparation for a final hearing is a case-management decision. Trial judges have a particularly wide discretion in making such orders, and the Court of Appeal almost never permits an appeal against them where the directions fall within the ambit of that discretion.
3. The judge had properly recognised the applicants’ difficulties, particularly their lack of legal representation and uncertainty about the relevance of their proposed witnesses. The directions were intended to facilitate and support their preparation for the final hearing. The refusal to permit the proposed witness summonses was therefore within the judge’s discretion.
4. The challenged order had become an incidental and historic step in the proceedings. The final hearing had taken place, the contact applications had been refused, and the directions could no longer usefully be undone. Granting permission would not assist the applicants.
5. The application did not concern the earlier order of Sumner J or the order made after the final hearing. Those orders were not under appeal.

• Neath County Court/Swansea Registry: His Honour Judge Hugh Jones made a directions order on 30 March 2001 in preparation for a final contact hearing.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was provisionally refused on 3 May 2001. On renewal, Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal the 30 March directions order.