B (Children)

Permission to appeal may be granted where the proposed grounds raise a real prospect of success, even though the appeal remains difficult. A court should adjourn an appeal where the evidence has not been adequately considered and the available hearing time would risk an unfairly truncated hearing. The need to avoid delay and expense gives way to the interests of a fair trial, particularly where children’s welfare is engaged. Appropriate interim directions may include continuing a stay and permitting disclosure of relevant papers to a clinic providing psychiatric or psychotherapeutic treatment.

The applicant mother sought permission to appeal against an order made by Mr Recorder Rex Bryan in the Willesden County Court on 18 February 2002. The order provided for the father to have supervised contact with the parties’ two children every two months. Lord Justice Thorpe had stayed execution of the order and listed the matter initially for permission to appeal only. It was later listed with the substantive appeal, but only half a day was allowed and the Court of Appeal had not had sufficient time to consider the extensive contact-centre reports and other evidence. The central issues were whether permission should be granted, whether the appeal could fairly proceed within the allocated time, and what interim arrangements should apply.

1. Permission and adjournment. Permission to appeal was granted because the grounds, amplified by the skeleton argument, raised a real prospect of success for the purposes of CPR 52. The court recognised that the appeal was difficult and required careful consideration.
2. The substantive appeal was adjourned and directed to be expedited. The evidence was voluminous, including detailed contact-centre reports on which the recorder had relied. Lord Justice Ward had only been able to review part of that material, and a half-day estimate risked curtailing argument and preventing the court from doing justice to the case. The interests of a full and fair hearing prevailed over the additional delay and expense, including the effect on the mother’s home and legal costs. A three-judge court and a one-day estimate were considered preferable.
3. The stay of execution of the recorder’s order was continued until determination of the appeal. The court emphasised the importance, particularly for the children, that the father should have a full opportunity to have his case fairly considered.
4. The court directed that all papers in the case could be disclosed to the clinic willing to provide psychiatric and psychotherapeutic assistance to the children, especially the elder child. The clinic was to be told that it was common ground that the father had not used actual violence towards the mother during the marriage or after its breakdown. The transcript of Nancy Assimaki’s evidence was to be obtained by the respondent if so advised. Costs were reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 881, permission to appeal was granted, the substantive appeal was adjourned and expedited, and the stay was continued pending determination.
• Willesden County Court: Mr Recorder Rex Bryan made an order on 18 February 2002 providing for supervised paternal contact with the two children every two months.