Family Law Hub

Case Management

Latest updates

  • The husband appealed from a case management order made in financial remedy proceedings. The parties had separated in 2016, after 29 years of marriage. It was accepted on both sides that their assets had been built up during the marriage. There had been negotiations but the wife did not consider herself bound by the agreement. The judge below had found that an abbreviated process was not appropriate, since the significance of the agreement would require detailed analysis, and he ordered further case management. On appeal, the husband argued that the judge had erred in refusing to set down his show cause application for hearing, and in making case management decisions that would have been unnecessary if the show cause application had been successful. The wife argued that the judge's order had been within his discretion. Theis J dismissed the appeal on all grounds, rejecting any suggestion that the judge had been wrong or erred in law. He had been entitled to make the order that he made, for the reasons he set out. Such cases were fact specific, and there was no inflexible rule as to how the proceedings should be conducted. She urged the parties to negotiate, to bring them certainty and finality, and to reduce the impact of increasing legal costs. Judgment, 16/12/2020, free
  • The plan looks at how the civil and family courts are increasing capacity. News, 11/11/2020, free
  • The questions were whether a child should be told of his biological father, whether the husband (the psychological father) should be allowed to take the child on holiday to France, and what directions should be given relating to a deceit claim. The mother did not want the child to be told, and the biological father denied his paternity. Cohen J decided that the child should be told when an independent social worker, agreed upon by the parents, thought the time was right. He refused permission for the holiday, not being confident that the child's return could be achieved if the husband took him to the UAE. Cohen J allowed the mother's application to strike out the deceit claim to proceed to a hearing. Judgment, 18/08/2019, free
  • A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • Report presents the findings from 33 qualitative interviews with a range of professional participants including family judges, legal representatives, Cafcass guardians and social workers News, 16/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Recording of webinar first broadcast on 15th October 2020. Webcast, 20/10/2020, members only
  • Matthew Long, of 29 Bedford Row, reviews the current best practice guidelines for managing cases involving litigants in person, explains the role of McKenzie Friends and offers some practical tips drawn from his experience. Webcast, 07/02/2018, members only
  • Mena Ruparel, a committee member of the Law Society Family Law Section, presents an overview of the revised Law Society Family Law Protocol, revised and re-issued in October 2015. Webcast, 30/11/2015, free
  • Webinar first broadcast on Thursday 29 October 2015. Running time: 56 mins approx Webcast, 03/11/2015, members only
  • All too often we only think about tactics in the run up to a Final Hearing, or possibly an FDR, but we should be thinking about them at the outset, or at least as soon as we have a picture of the parties’ assets. In this most practical of webinars, Marc Saunderson of Mills & Reeve provides an invaluable toolkit of hints & reminders to help you make the most of the FDA, touching on completing Forms A & E, constructing chronologies and gathering the documentation you need on the day. Webcast, 20/06/2014, members only

Latest sources


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item