D (Children)

Claims for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 arising from family proceedings should ordinarily be assessed in the context of the proceedings as a whole. Where the underlying Children Act proceedings remain ongoing, a damages claim is premature. The court may order historical or third-party disclosure only where the material is potentially relevant to the welfare issues being determined. Convention rights do not justify blanket disclosure. Whether damages may be awarded within proceedings not specifically brought under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 remained open.

The father sought residence or shared residence of two children in proceedings in Swansea County Court. The mother resisted and sought an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 restricting further applications. The father also sought to raise alleged breaches of his Convention rights and obtain damages concerning the conduct of the local authority and the fairness of the proceedings.

HHJ Parry made interlocutory orders concerning disclosure, expert evidence, the issues to be tried and possible representation of the children by the National Youth Advocacy Service. She declined to incorporate the damages claims into the Children Act proceedings and refused to transfer them to the High Court. The father sought permission to appeal the orders of 22 November and 29 November 2005 and 13 January 2006. The central issue was whether those decisions were appealable and whether the human-rights claims should proceed within the existing proceedings.

1. Applications refused. The father’s applications for permission to appeal all three interlocutory orders were refused.
2. The county court judge was entitled to require a threshold of relevance before ordering third-party disclosure. Documents concerning the local authority’s conduct, the allegations made and their investigation could be relevant to the children’s welfare and to residence or contact, but Article 6 did not make disclosure an open-ended exercise.
3. The question whether damages could properly be awarded within family proceedings not specifically instituted under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was expressly left open. The judge was entitled to direct the father to appeal the refusal to transfer the matter to the High Court or to bring separate proceedings.
4. Any claim for damages under the Act had to be considered in the context of the proceedings overall. Since the Children Act proceedings had not concluded, complaints about disclosure, the local authority’s conduct and procedural irregularity were premature. The father should continue the welfare proceedings and review any human-rights claim after conclusion.
5. The disclosure directions, invitation to NYAS to consider representing the children and related case-management decisions were proper and sensible. There was no sufficient basis for recusal, apparent bias or removal of the case from HHJ Parry. Enforcement of disclosure orders was a matter for the Swansea County Court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal the Swansea County Court’s interlocutory orders of 22 November, 29 November 2005 and 13 January 2006 was refused. The underlying Children Act proceedings were to continue before HHJ Parry.