S (A Child)

The Court of Appeal should not intervene in ongoing proceedings merely because a party is dissatisfied with an interlocutory or case-management order. A renewed application must have a proper foundation and a realistic appellate objective. Complaints about an addendum expert report, its likely effect, or issues to be explored at trial belong to the trial judge. Where the proceedings are continuing and the challenged report has already been supplied, the appropriate course is to refuse the applications and allow the trial process to resume under effective case management.

The first applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal interlocutory and case-management orders made by Her Honour Judge Coates in the Brighton County Court, particularly an order dated 19 September 2008. The underlying proceedings had been interrupted and were due to resume on 9 October.

Wall LJ had considered the permission application on 2 October and found no foundation for it. The father made two further applications concerning a direction for an addendum report from Dr Withecomb. The Court of Appeal considered whether any of these applications justified intervention before the proceedings resumed.

The Court of Appeal refused all the applications.

1. Renewed application. The first applicant’s renewed application concerned interlocutory and case-management orders made during continuing proceedings. Wall LJ had already explained that the application had no foundation. Given the narrow timeframe, any effective application should have been made promptly after the order of 19 September. The renewed application disclosed no realistic appellate objective.
2. Expert report and matters for trial. The father challenged the propriety of the direction requiring an addendum report from Dr Withecomb. The concern had become academic because the report had already been furnished. The Court understood the father’s concern that the local authority might seek to revive sexual abuse applications previously struck out by Pauffley J, and that the report might adversely affect his position. Those matters were for the trial judge. They did not give the Court of Appeal a role in the continuing litigation.
3. Case management. The Court invited the parties and the judge to consider, when the proceedings resumed, an inflexible timetable directed to completion on 4 November. That was practical case-management guidance rather than a separate appellate order.

The formal order was that the applications were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 7 October 2008, refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and the father’s two related applications.
2. Permission stage: Wall LJ considered the first applicant’s application on 2 October 2008 and determined that it had no foundation.
3. Brighton County Court: Her Honour Judge Coates made interlocutory and case-management orders, including the order dated 19 September 2008 requiring an addendum report from Dr Withecomb.