D (Children)

A family court may conclude proceedings at a directions hearing where it decides that the case has reached its end, even if a further hearing had been anticipated. Courts have a responsibility to remove cases that no longer require adjudication, avoiding unnecessary delay and expenditure. If the conclusion is unexpected and opposed by a party, the judge must explain the course taken and why it is justified on proportionality grounds. The absence of a full hearing does not itself establish an Article 6 breach where the circumstances show that no further adjudication is required.

The mother appealed against an order made by His Honour Judge Copley in Willesden County Court on 20 July 2005. The order converted an interim arrangement for the children into a substantive order, allocated an additional school-term night with the father, and vacated a forthcoming two-day hearing.

Most issues had been resolved. The father withdrew his residence application and accepted the mother’s proposals concerning child B. The mother argued that final determination at a directions hearing denied her oral evidence and the full range of reports, contrary to Article 6, and improperly separated the siblings. The central issue was whether the judge could conclude the proceedings at that stage and, if so, what procedural safeguards applied.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was refused. Sir Martin Nourse agreed with Lord Justice Thorpe.
2. Power to conclude proceedings. The court applied the principle stated in Re CP (A Child): where a judge concludes that proceedings have reached finality, the judge has both the right and the duty to bring them to an end immediately. That principle was not materially different merely because the parties had anticipated and sought a further hearing.
3. Case-management responsibility. Judges must remove from the system at the earliest possible stage cases whose continued retention would merely prolong the wait for other cases. A substantive order may therefore be made at a directions hearing where the outstanding issue no longer justifies a further trial.
4. Procedural safeguard. If a judge concludes a case against the submission of a party at a directions hearing, the judge must explain the unexpected course and why it is justified on proportionality grounds. The explanation should address the apparent deprivation felt by the affected party. On the circumstances here, the mother’s Article 6 argument could not succeed. The judge had considered the settled school-week routine, the existing arrangement’s satisfactory operation, the parties’ substantial agreement, and the local authority’s view that the arrangement was sensible.
5. Sibling relationship and variation. The argument that the order improperly separated the children did not survive the parties’ correspondence and concessions, which showed that arrangements preserving their relationship had been accepted. A variation application would be justified only if substantial evidence showed that the existing arrangements were adversely affecting the children.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted, but the consequent appeal refused.
2. Willesden County Court: His Honour Judge Copley made a substantive order on 20 July 2005, determining the remaining school-term contact issue and vacating the anticipated November hearing.