GM v VB

An appellate court should interfere with a case-management decision only in limited circumstances, but must do so where the decision is wrong and materially affects the proceedings’ outcome. In private-law children proceedings involving serious domestic-abuse allegations, a fact-finding hearing should not be vacated where there is a significant gulf between the allegations and the alleged perpetrator’s admissions, and the disputed facts bear on welfare and risk. Directions requiring an expert to plan direct contact may be premature if risk assessment and factual determination remain necessary. Virtual contact is not inherently free from risk. Live video contact must be assessed under PD12J, including the risk of emotional, psychological or physical harm. Recorded messages, which can be screened in advance, do not necessarily justify unsupervised live video contact.

The mother appealed against case-management orders made by HHJ Tolson KC at the Reading Family Court on 9 December 2024. The proceedings concerned three children and serious allegations of domestic abuse, including physical violence, strangulation, threats and coercive behaviour. The father had pleaded guilty to criminal offences arising from one incident and made admissions in family proceedings, but disputed substantial parts of the mother’s allegations.

A previous judge had directed a fact-finding hearing. HHJ Tolson KC vacated it, directed an independent social worker to prepare a plan for re-establishing face-to-face contact, and ordered unsupervised live video contact. The central issues were whether those directions were permissible case management and whether the risks associated with live video contact had been properly assessed.

1. Appeal allowed. The orders were set aside on all three grounds. The case was remitted to the Presiding Judge for the South East Circuit to determine allocation and next steps.
2. Under Family Procedure Rules 2010 r 30.12, an appeal lies only where the decision below was wrong or unjust because of procedural or other irregularity. An appellate court must respect the trial judge’s discretion and apply the principles in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27. Case-management decisions attract substantial deference, but robust case management has limits and must still secure a fair, proportionate and welfare-sensitive trial.
3. The judge below had misunderstood the mother’s position by treating the possibility of future face-to-face contact as no longer seriously in issue. The mother sought a proper professional risk assessment based on realistic concessions or findings of fact before supporting direct or live video contact.
4. There was a significant gulf between the mother’s serious allegations and the father’s admissions. The disputed accounts were relevant to the welfare outcome because they affected the level of risk posed by the father. In those circumstances, the already-listed fact-finding hearing was necessary and should not have been vacated. The directions to the independent social worker were premature because they required a plan for reintroducing face-to-face contact without requiring a full risk assessment or section 7 report.
5. The order for unsupervised live video contact was also premature. Under PD12J, the court had to consider whether interim contact exposed either parent or the children to an unmanageable risk of harm. That risk could be emotional or psychological as well as physical. The fact that contact was virtual did not answer the concern. Recorded video messages had greater protection because they could be screened in advance; live video contact could not.

• High Court (Family Division): Appeal allowed. The case-management orders were set aside and the case remitted for determination of allocation and next steps.
• Reading Family Court: HHJ Tolson KC vacated the listed fact-finding hearing, directed preparation of an independent social worker’s contact plan, and ordered unsupervised live video contact.