LA v KA

A Dispute Resolution Appointment may resolve or narrow issues, but it should not result in final child arrangements orders where a party continues to contest the outcome and seeks a different order. The court should instead hear evidence at the appointment if appropriate or give focused case-management directions towards a final hearing. Procedural fairness under Articles 6(1) and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be respected. On appeal, the court may set aside procedurally unsustainable orders while making interim holding arrangements that protect the children’s welfare pending rehearing.

The mother appealed against child arrangements orders made by the Family Court at Luton on 26 April 2024. The orders altered term-time contact and made arrangements for school holidays, although the hearing had been listed principally to address holiday contact and costs. The mother argued that the judge had determined disputed matters without proper notice, evidence or consideration of the earlier domestic-abuse findings and the applicable procedural safeguards.

Cusworth J had stayed the increased contact pending the appeal. The central issues were whether the judge had exceeded the proper scope of the listed hearing and whether the orders could stand without a final evidential hearing.

1. Appeal allowed in part and matter remitted. Sir Jonathan Cohen held that aspects of the order could not stand because the mother had not consented to final orders and had not expected the wider disputes to be determined at that hearing.
2. A Dispute Resolution Appointment is directed towards resolving or narrowing issues. Where a party continues to contest the outcome and seeks a different order, the court should not make final child arrangements orders without affording a proper opportunity to present evidence and argument. The court may hear evidence at the appointment to resolve or narrow issues, or give tight case-management directions towards a short final hearing. The judge adopted the approach in P v F (Dispute Resolution Hearing) [2023] EWHC 2730 (Fam).
3. The procedural requirements of Articles 6(1) and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged where the hearing determines arrangements affecting a parent’s family life. The absence of a rote recital of the welfare checklist was not itself fatal, since the judge had repeatedly considered the children’s welfare and section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 was accepted to have been in mind.
4. The appellate court nevertheless made holding arrangements pending rehearing. The father was to have specified summer contact and alternate-weekend contact. The remaining issues were identified as future summer holidays, Christmas arrangements, handover venues, term-time contact and duration, and the children’s living arrangements.
5. Limited statements were directed on those issues. The matter was remitted for a one-day hearing before a different Family Court judge. No welfare report was ordered unless both parties considered one helpful.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from the Family Court at Luton. Sir Jonathan Cohen set aside aspects of the order, made holding arrangements, and remitted the outstanding issues for rehearing before another judge.
• Family Court at Luton: HHJ Kushner made child arrangements orders on 26 April 2024, including increased term-time contact and holiday arrangements.
• High Court: Cusworth J stayed the order insofar as it increased contact pending determination of the appeal.