London Borough of Bexley v V & Ors

Family court orders, including interlocutory case-management directions, must be obeyed strictly and on time. A party unable to comply must apply for an extension before the deadline expires. Pressure of work, public funding difficulties or economic conditions do not excuse non-compliance. Deliberate or contumelious default will ordinarily have consequences, particularly where the defaulting party is a public authority and causes delay in proceedings concerning children. The court may list an early hearing to address the default and may order the defaulting authority to pay the costs occasioned by that hearing.

The local authority failed to file its final evidence by the deadline imposed in directions orders and also failed to file an amended schedule of facts. It applied for no extension before the deadlines expired. The evidence was filed substantially late, delaying the other parties’ compliance and requiring a directions hearing.

The central issues were whether the proceedings could remain listed for hearing, what consequences should follow from the local authority’s failures, and whether it should pay the costs of the directions hearing.

1. Strict compliance. The local authority’s failure to file its final evidence and amended schedule of facts in accordance with the orders was unjustified. Court orders are mandatory obligations, not preferences or requests. The obligation extends to interlocutory case-management directions. A party unable to comply must apply for an extension before the time for compliance expires. Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA 1177 was expressly adopted, including the application of the principle to public bodies.
2. Pressure of work, public funding difficulties and the wider economic climate do not relieve social workers or lawyers of the obligation to comply with court orders. Non-compliance ordinarily carries consequences, and default by a local authority is particularly serious because delay is inimical to children’s welfare.
3. Despite the delay, the other parties could still file their documents and the fixture could be maintained. The matter was therefore directed to proceed on 26 June.
4. The hearing had been required by the local authority’s failures. It was therefore appropriate to order the London Borough of Bexley to pay the costs of the hearing.
5. The judgment was directed to be transcribed, anonymised and published. Reporting permission was granted, with the local authority remaining identified and responsible for the transcript cost.

First-instance directions hearing in the High Court (Family Division). No appellate history is stated in the judgment.