C (Children)

The Court of Appeal will not ordinarily grant permission to appeal against directions orders made to prepare a pending issue for trial, or against orders intended to operate for only a very short period. An exception exists where the circumstances are exceptional. Frustration, delay, resource difficulties or an arguable complaint about case management do not, without more, justify permission. The court may also decline relief that falls outside its appellate jurisdiction.

The father applied in person for permission to appeal orders made by Johnson J in the Family Division on 22 July 2002. The orders gave directions for the preparation of a hearing concerning contact with his two children and required interim contact with one child. They also adjourned financial applications and fixed interim periodical payments at £1,100 per month pending the hearing on 29 November.

The application followed an earlier Court of Appeal judgment which had directed a fresh investigation of the family circumstances, with CAFCASS Legal acting as guardian and considering expert assistance. The central issue was whether permission should be granted against the directions and short-term interim financial order before the substantive disputes were determined.

1. Applications dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's applications for permission to appeal. It directed that the transcript be prepared at public expense and expedited.
2. The challenged contact order was a conventional directions order designed to ensure the proper preparation of a pending issue for trial. The interim financial order was likewise intended to operate only during the four-month period before the listed hearing. The court stated that permission is not ordinarily granted against either category of order.
3. That general principle admits of exception, but nothing in this case approached the exceptional circumstances required. The applicant's extensive bundle and skeleton argument sought relief, much of which was outside the court's jurisdiction. His asserted procedural vulnerability, frustration with CAFCASS, and dissatisfaction with the progress of the case did not justify an interlocutory appeal.
4. The court nevertheless recognised that the earlier appellate directions had contemplated a fresh endeavour to address the breakdown in the relationship between the father and his daughter. It observed that the trial judge had the opportunity and responsibility to address that core issue, and that a one-day listing for the contact and financial disputes might prove inadequate. It expressed the hope that priority would be given to the children's relationship at the forthcoming hearing. Those observations were guidance for the ongoing proceedings and were not grounds for granting permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 25 November 2002, the court dismissed the applications for permission to appeal and ordered that the transcript be expedited: [2002] EWCA Civ 1769.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Johnson J made directions and interim financial orders on 22 July 2002. He refused permission to appeal on 8 August 2002.
• Earlier Court of Appeal proceedings: An earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 20 February 2002 had directed a fresh investigation of the family circumstances and further involvement by CAFCASS Legal.