F (a Minor) (Permission to appeal), Re

For an application for permission to appeal under the Family Proceedings Rules 2010, the relevant decision date is the date of the formal hand-down or oral delivery of judgment. A party wishing to apply to the lower court should do so at that hearing, or request a formal adjournment to make the application. Without an application or adjournment, the lower court is no longer seized of the matter.

Permission requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. An appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact within the trial judge’s generous ambit of discretion absent an error of law or insufficiently cogent reasoning. Reasonable inferences may properly be drawn from the evidence.

Following a fact-finding hearing in the Family Court at Wolverhampton, Her Honour Judge Helen Arthur made findings of domestic abuse and physical chastisement against F and concluded that F posed a risk of physical and emotional harm to M and the children. F, acting in person, sought permission to appeal more than five months out of time.

HHJ Arthur granted an extension of time and considered the permission application. The High Court questioned whether she retained jurisdiction to do so because the judgment had been sent electronically without a formal hand-down process or adjournment. It therefore considered the jurisdictional issue and, afresh, F’s five proposed grounds of appeal.

1. Jurisdiction and hand-down. The relevant date for an application for permission to appeal is the date of the decision hearing, whether judgment is delivered orally or by formal hand-down of a reserved judgment. Where the parties are not present, an application may be made in writing at the hand-down hearing. If more time is needed, the hearing must be formally adjourned. Without an application or adjournment, the lower court cannot entertain a retrospective permission application. The 21-day period continues to run from the decision date.

2. The procedure applies equally under the Family Proceedings Rules 2010 and the Civil Procedure Rules. Directly emailing a perfected judgment to the parties without the formalities of hand-down is unsatisfactory and liable to create uncertainty. Because the date of formal hand-down could not be identified, the High Court was not satisfied that HHJ Arthur had jurisdiction. It nevertheless considered the application afresh and granted permission to appeal out of time.

3. Under FPR 31.3(7), permission is granted only where the appeal has a real, meaning realistic rather than fanciful, prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason to hear it. Under FPR 30.12(3), an appeal may be allowed where the decision was wrong or unjust because of procedural irregularity.

4. The proposed grounds did not satisfy that threshold. The appellate court cannot interfere with factual findings falling within the trial judge’s generous ambit of discretion unless there is an error of law or insufficiently cogent reasoning. The trial judge had heard the evidence and was entitled to assess reliability, evaluate covert recordings with extreme caution, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. A fact-finding judge need make only those findings required effectively to resolve the child’s welfare needs.

5. The allegations of procedural unfairness, failure to revisit case-management decisions, reliance on assumptions, failure to consider evidence, and bias were unarguable on the material advanced. The applications for permission to appeal were refused. The application was certified as totally without merit, and no further application might be made.

1. High Court (Family Division) — The application for permission to appeal was determined on the papers. The court held that the lower judge’s jurisdiction was uncertain because there had been no compliant formal hand-down, considered permission afresh, and refused permission.
2. Family Court, Wolverhampton — Following a three-day fact-finding hearing on 26–28 June 2024, HHJ Arthur made findings against F and refused or otherwise determined the application for permission to appeal out of time on 25 October 2024.