MH v Lancashire County Council

When deciding whether to adjourn an appeal, the court must weigh the applicant’s opportunity to obtain legal representation against the need for a fair and timely determination.

In family proceedings, the child’s interests are not paramount on an adjournment application, but they are of very considerable importance. An adjournment may be refused where it would cause uncertain and substantial further delay, particularly where delay prolongs a young child’s stay in foster care, increases bonding with temporary carers and risks greater difficulty on eventual removal.

MH v Lancashire County Council concerned an appeal by the mother against care and placement orders made by a local family proceedings court on 3 February 2010. Her appeal to the Lancaster County Court was struck out by His Honour Judge Rawkins on 21 April 2010. Black LJ granted permission to appeal on 23 June 2010 and extended time.

At the Court of Appeal hearing, the mother appeared in person and sought an adjournment so that she could apply for representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The local authority opposed the application, relying on the existing delay and its effect on the child, who had remained in foster care throughout the proceedings. The central issue was whether the appeal should be adjourned or proceed without further delay.

Adjournment and disposition

Wilson LJ gave the reasons, with Rimer LJ agreeing. The application to adjourn was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

1. The mother’s wish to obtain legal representation was understandable and relevant. The court nevertheless had to assess the circumstances as a whole. The child’s interests were not paramount in deciding whether to adjourn, but they were of very considerable importance.
2. There had already been substantial delay since the care and placement orders. The child was 21 months old and had spent her whole life in foster care. Further delay would prolong that temporary arrangement, deepen her bond with the foster carers and increase the likely difficulty of removing her later.
3. The proposed adjournment would require the Bar Pro Bono Unit to examine the underlying merits and documents. The timing and outcome of that process were uncertain, and the court considered that an adjournment was likely to cause at least two or three months’ further delay.
4. Balancing the mother’s desire for representation against the practical consequences and uncertainty of further delay, the court concluded that the appeal should not be adjourned. The operative order was: application for adjournment refused; appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 28 October 2010 the court refused the application for an adjournment and dismissed the appeal: [2010] EWCA Civ 1384.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 June 2010 Black LJ granted permission to appeal and extended time.
3. Lancaster County Court: His Honour Judge Rawkins struck out the mother’s appeal on 21 April 2010.
4. Local family proceedings court: Care and placement orders were made on 3 February 2010.