D (Children), Re

Interlocutory directions made to advance proceedings towards trial are ordinarily matters for the trial judge’s discretionary case management. Permission to appeal should be refused where the grounds disclose no doubt about the directions’ validity or propriety. An appellate court may determine permission applications in the applicant’s absence after considering any adjournment request, provided it is satisfied that proceeding will cause no risk of injustice. Where the applications are hopeless, permission to appeal, an extension of time and permission to rely on further evidence may all be refused. The court may also direct that the applications are not re-listed.

Following the parties’ separation, their two children lived with their father under a residence order. Earlier proceedings had included supervised contact orders in favour of the mother and an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

The mother sought permission to appeal from two orders of His Honour Judge Curl in Norwich County Court. The first, made on 6 December 2001, comprised interlocutory directions. The second, made on 27 March 2002, concerned further directions and the possible appointment of the Official Solicitor. She also sought an extension of time and permission to adduce fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the directions disclosed any appealable error and whether the applications should be adjourned because of her absence and ill health.

1. Nature of the challenged orders. The applications concerned approximately seven orders made on 6 December 2001 and three orders made on 27 March 2002. All were interlocutory directions intended to advance the proceedings towards trial. They were essentially matters for the trial judge’s discretionary management of the case.
2. Merits of the applications. Nothing in the grounds cast doubt on the validity or propriety of the directions. The applications for permission to appeal were therefore hopeless. The associated applications for an extension of time and permission to submit additional evidence also failed.
3. Determination in the mother’s absence. The Court of Appeal had considered two previous adjournments and two further written applications for adjournment. Although the mother’s ill health was noted, the court concluded that there was no risk of injustice in hearing and determining the applications in her absence.
4. Orders. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed. The applications for an extension of time and for permission to rely on further evidence were refused. The applications were directed not to be re-listed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the interlocutory orders was refused, with the related applications also refused.
2. Norwich County Court: His Honour Judge Curl made interlocutory directions orders on 6 December 2001 and 27 March 2002.