London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E (Failure to Comply with Directions)

Case management directions in public law care proceedings are orders which must be obeyed fully, on time and to the letter. Parties must obtain the court’s prior approval before altering the timetable. Resource pressures, workload or informal agreement cannot justify non-compliance. Directions are essential to a fair hearing under Arts 6 and 8 of the ECHR and to avoiding delay under the Children Act 1989. Where adoption is proposed, care proceedings and any placement-order application should proceed concurrently, supported by the Agency Decision Maker’s decision and the necessary evidence. A final hearing should be adjourned where proceeding without that material would be manifestly unfair, despite the resulting delay. Persistent non-compliance by a local authority may justify a costs order or an order to show cause in respect of wasted costs.

The London Borough of Redbridge sought an adjournment of the final hearing concerning E, a child who had been the subject of care proceedings since January 2014. The proceedings had previously resulted in care and placement orders, an appeal, an attempted rehabilitation to the mother, a further care order and a second successful appeal.

Following remission to the Family Division, the court gave detailed directions for evidence, care planning, a placement-order application and the Agency Decision Maker’s decision. The local authority failed to comply with numerous directions, failed to issue the placement application in time, provided deficient evidence and care planning, and did not apply for extensions before the deadlines expired. The central questions were whether the final hearing should proceed despite those failures and whether the local authority should show cause why it should not pay the wasted costs.

1. The final hearing was adjourned. The local authority was ordered to show cause why it should not pay the wasted costs of the compliance hearing and the adjourned final hearing.

2. Case management orders in public law proceedings must be complied with on time and to the letter. A party unable to comply must seek an extension before the deadline expires. Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 4.5(3), parties cannot privately vary the court’s timetable. A notification that the timetable has changed is not an application for prior approval.

3. Case management directions protect the fairness of proceedings in which the court may permanently remove a child from the birth family. They support compliance with Arts 6 and 8 of the ECHR and the statutory obligation under s 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 to avoid delay. Workload and resource difficulties do not excuse non-compliance.

4. Where the local authority proposes adoption, the care proceedings and placement-order application should proceed concurrently. The Agency Decision Maker’s decision should be timetabled so that it, the placement application and the associated evidence are before the court. Without that material, the care plan may be inchoate or conditional, and the court should not proceed to a final hearing.

5. Although delay was already seriously harmful to E, proceeding with missing evidence, a deficient care plan and inadequate time for the mother to respond would have been manifestly unfair. An adjournment was therefore necessary. The court directed continuing compliance monitoring and held that, under s 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the principles in Ridehalgh v Horsfield, the local authority should show cause concerning wasted costs.

The judgment records that the matter had previously been remitted to the Family Division following a successful appeal by the mother in Re A [2016] EWCA Civ 820. The present judgment concerned case management after remission and was a first-instance decision on the adjournment and costs issues.