T (A Child)

An application for permission to appeal may be refused where intervening developments have made the challenged order academic and the proposed appeal would not advance the proceedings. The risk of exposing an applicant to the expense of pursuing a hopeless appeal reinforces that conclusion. In child-contact proceedings, the court should remain alert to avoidable administrative errors, delay and periods without contact. Effective specialist representation may also be important where the parties have unequal access to public funding, although that practical concern does not make an academic appeal justiciable.

The applicant, acting in person, sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Copley in the Willesden County Court on 21 November 2001. By the time of the hearing, further directions had been made and assessments arranged, with a further review listed for June. The challenged order had therefore become part of the archive of the litigation. The applicant had also had no direct contact with the child for nearly a year. The central issue was whether permission to appeal could properly be granted when the proposed appeal would not advance the proceedings.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the substantial developments since the application was lodged had rendered the challenged order academic. Granting permission would not advance the proceedings and would expose the applicant to the risk and expense of pursuing a hopeless appeal.
2. Delay and case management. The progress of the child-contact case was considered unsatisfactory. The order of 28 March provided only for a one-hour directions review in June, despite the applicant having had no direct contact for approximately a year. The proposed Coram Foundation assessment and DVIP assessment did not adequately explain or remedy the delay. A court error in referring the case directly to Thomas Coram, rather than through CAFCASS, had contributed to the lost time.
3. Representation. The judge expressed concern that the absence of competent and energetic legal representation might also have contributed to the lack of progress. He made no criticism of the mother’s solicitors, but noted the inequality created by her public funding and the applicant’s lack of eligibility. He encouraged the applicant to identify a specialist solicitor through the accreditation schemes of the Law Society or SFLA.
4. The comments on delay, representation and accreditation were practical observations made to assist the future conduct of the proceedings. The formal order was that the application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused. The application was academic because intervening developments meant that the order under challenge would not advance the proceedings.
• Willesden County Court: His Honour Judge Copley made the order under challenge on 21 November 2001.