E (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no real prospect that the challenged order was wrong. An appeal against a time-limited restriction on further applications may also lack practical utility once the restriction has expired, since a fresh application can then be made before a judge able to hear evidence and resolve factual disputes. The court may express practical guidance about arrangements for restoring child contact, but such encouragement does not itself justify granting permission.

The father sought permission to appeal from care orders made by Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith in the Bristol County Court on 11 December 2000. Earlier proceedings had focused on restoring contact between the child and her father, but no face-to-face contact had occurred. The application also concerned an order barring further applications by either parent for one year. The central issues were whether there was any real prospect of successfully challenging the orders and whether an appeal remained useful after the restriction had expired.

Lady Justice Hale refused the father's application for permission to appeal. She had already concluded that there was no real prospect of a successful appeal against the care order itself. The hearing therefore focused on the future contact arrangements and the temporary restriction on further applications.

1. The care plan contemplated re-establishing contact, and the lack of progress was concerning. However, the court was not hearing evidence and could not resolve the parties' factual disputes or allocate responsibility for the delay.
2. The one-year restriction on further applications had expired. There was consequently no continuing bar. Either parent could make a fresh application before a judge able to hear evidence and determine disputed facts. An appeal against the expired restriction would serve no practical purpose.
3. The agreement reached in January provided a platform for progress, including regular letter-box contact by the father and steps by the local authority to encourage reciprocal and family contact. The court expressed a strong hope that the agreement would be implemented, but that practical encouragement did not provide a legal basis for permission.

Permission to appeal was refused. The local authority was ordered to pay 50 per cent of CAFCASS Legal Services' costs of the application.

• Bristol County Court — Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith made care orders on 11 December 2000 and barred further applications by either parent concerning the child for one year.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Lady Justice Hale refused permission to appeal, finding no real prospect of success and no practical utility in challenging the expired restriction.