W (Children), Re
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case addresses the failure of Bristol City Council to comply with court orders in family law proceedings. Various judgments highlight the unacceptable nature of non-compliance, especially by public bodies, and emphasize the necessity for strict adherence to court-ordered deadlines. The courts have increasingly stressed immediate reporting of any non-compliance and have imposed financial penalties to deter such behavior.
Judgment
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division :
On 16 October 2013 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in In re W (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177 , [2014] 1 WLR 1993 , [2014] 1 FLR 1266 . In my judgment, I referred to the lamentable failure of Bristol City Council to comply with an order which His Honour Judge Barclay had made in a family case in the Bristol County Court.
I did not mince my words (paras 50-54):
“50 That the parents and their representatives should have been put in this position is quite deplorable. It is, unhappily, symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated. It is something of which I complained almost thirteen years ago: see In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders) [2001] 1 WLR 211 , [2001] 1 FLR 308 . Perhaps what I say as President will carry more weight than what I said when the junior puisne.
51 I refer to the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders made by family courts. There is simply no excuse for this. Orders, including interlocutory orders, must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time. Too often they are not. They are not preferences, requests or mere indications; they are orders: see In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 , [2014] 1 WLR 1611 , para 74.
52 The law is clear. As Romer LJ said in Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285, 288, in a passage endorsed by the Privy Council in Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97 , 101:
“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void.”
For present purposes that principle applies as much to orders by way of interlocutory case management directions as to any other species of order. The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand – strict compliance with all such orders. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence.
53 Let me spell it out. An order that something is to be done by 4 pm on Fr