MH v Lancashire County Council

An appellate court may strike out a family appeal for failure to comply with procedural rules or directions. For a placement-order appeal under the Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005, the power is exercisable only where there is a compelling reason. That threshold may be met where the appellant has failed to file properly particularised grounds after being given an opportunity to do so, has not sought further time, and has no measurable prospect of regularising the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. In exercising the discretion, the child’s welfare is not the paramount consideration, but urgency and the need for finality remain potent considerations.

Following a three-day hearing, the Fylde Coast and North Lancashire Family Proceedings Court made a care order and a placement order concerning M on 3 February 2010. The mother, who had been legally represented at that hearing, sought to appeal but was unable to obtain representation for the appeal. HHJ Rawkins directed her to file and serve a properly drawn notice of appeal and subsequently struck out the appeal on 21 April 2010 for non-compliance. Before the Court of Appeal, she complained that her appeal had never been substantively heard and that she had lacked legal assistance. The central issue was whether the judge had exceeded his discretion or otherwise erred in law by striking out the appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Wilson delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Rimer agreeing. The Court upheld HHJ Rawkins’s decision to strike out the mother’s appeal.
2. The judge had jurisdiction to strike out or set aside the proceedings for procedural non-compliance. Appeals against care orders were governed by the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, including rule 8.2A(1) and (2), read with rule 1.3 and rule 5 of Order 37 of the County Court Rules 1981. Appeals against placement orders were governed by rule 179 of the Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005. Under rule 179, the power to strike out could be exercised only where there was a compelling reason. For practical purposes, the same threshold applied to the care-order appeal.
3. The mother’s handwritten document was wholly inadequate as a notice of appeal. After being given an opportunity to regularise the appeal, she neither complied with the direction nor sought further time, and there was no measurable prospect that properly particularised grounds could be filed within a reasonable timeframe. Although an unless order might have been available, the judge’s decision to strike out was a conventional and lawful exercise of discretion.
4. The urgency of achieving finality for the child was a potent consideration. The child’s welfare was not the paramount consideration in deciding whether to strike out the appeal, but it remained highly relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
5. The Court did not need to determine the appeal’s merits. By way of postscript, it considered that even a substantive hearing, including consideration of fresh evidence, had no measurable chance of dislodging the magistrates’ conclusion and that further delay would prejudice the child. Those observations were unnecessary to the disposition.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2010] EWCA Civ 1257, the appeal against the county court’s strike-out was dismissed.
2. Lancaster County Court — HHJ Rawkins struck out the mother’s appeal on 21 April 2010 for failure to comply with procedural requirements and directions.
3. Fylde Coast and North Lancashire Family Proceedings Court — On 3 February 2010, magistrates made care and placement orders concerning M.