W (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal from a directions order should be refused where the proposed challenge is wholly hopeless or misconceived. Directions requiring parties to provide evidence of their means, transport costs and available alternatives may be proper and necessary to resolve a contact-related transport dispute. An interim contact order requiring a parent to undertake transport for a short period pending the substantive hearing may fall within the lower court’s discretion. Where the substantive issues are due to be determined at an imminent full hearing, the proper course is generally to await that hearing rather than pursue an interlocutory appeal.

Mr W sought permission to appeal against a Coventry County Court order made by His Honour Judge Eccles QC at a directions appointment on 4 January 2002. The order adjourned the parties’ applications, required statements about means and transport costs, made an interim contact order requiring the father to deliver and collect the child, and allowed an application for a penal notice if the order was breached. The underlying disputes concerned transport arrangements and whether the proceedings should be transferred from Coventry to Canterbury. Mr W did not attend the hearing or appear before the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether there was any arguable basis for challenging the directions and interim arrangements before the full hearing.

Application refused. Ward LJ held that the proposed appeal was wholly hopeless and misconceived.

1. The county court’s directions requiring each party to set out their case, means, transport costs and available alternative means of transport were proper and necessary. They enabled the court to resolve the transport issue at the restored hearing.
2. The interim contact order requiring the father to undertake delivery and collection for the intervening weekend was within the judge’s discretion. The absence of a penal notice was also proper. The father retained liberty to apply to vary the order.
3. The proper course was to await the full hearing on 7 February 2002. At that hearing the court could determine the transport issue and give a full ruling on the appropriate venue, including whether Coventry or Canterbury was suitable.
4. Ward LJ clarified that tentative observations in his earlier judgment concerning a possible challenge to a penal notice were preliminary views indicating only that an arguable case might exist. They did not represent a concluded view. He regretted a further comment concerning equal treatment of mothers and fathers and directed that the present judgment be placed on the Coventry County Court file.

The operative order was that the application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 2 February 2002, Ward LJ refused Mr W’s application for permission to appeal.
• Coventry County Court: On 4 January 2002, His Honour Judge Eccles QC made directions and interim contact orders, adjourned the parties’ applications to 7 February 2002, and reserved costs.