Lucy Taylor, barrister at Coram Chambers, has had her expert analysis published in Family Law Week. The article centres around the judgement in T v T and Others (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14 (B), where Recorder Chandler KC delivered a stern condemnation of the parties involved, highlighting alarming breaches of procedural conduct leading to the adjournment of a crucial final hearing.
Recorder Chandler KC stressed the persistent and troubling disregard for procedural protocols by the parties, declaring that, despite prior warnings, “nothing seems to change,” and emphasising that “even in the family court, there comes a limit.” The judgement serves as a critical reminder that adherence to established legal frameworks is not merely advisable but essential to the integrity of the judicial process.
The Parties Involved
At the heart of the case was the applicant (W), who had been represented at various stages throughout the proceedings, which included seven directions hearings. In stark contrast, the first respondent (H) appeared in person and had limited legal representation. The mess was further complicated by the involvement of respondents who often failed to attend hearings, prompting serious concerns about diligence and responsibility.
A Chaotic Courtroom
Recorder Chandler KC was left with no choice but to adjourn the hearing due to the pervasive chaos resulting from the parties’ negligence regarding procedural norms. The applicant’s failure to comply with basic requirements such as the length and contents of the bundle, timely submission of position statements, and clear articulation of issues rendered any attempts at a fair proceeding wholly unattainable. “The case had come to the court for a final hearing in such a disordered and chaotic state that it is simply impossible to proceed in a fair way,” the judge remarked.
While no costs order was issued – given the applicant’s legal aid status and the respondents’ individual representation – Recorder Chandler KC made it clear that had the circumstances been different, costs would have been pursued vigorously against the applicant.
The Issues at Hand
The judgement paints a picture of a case plagued by procrastination and lack of diligence on the part of the respondents. Notably, the absence of punctual appearances on the day of the hearing added to the disarray. Crucial documents were either submitted at the last minute or not at all, with one instance involving over 2,800 pages of documentation arriving just before proceedings commenced.
Recorder Purchase KC, who provided further commentary on the case, highlighted the critical importance of timely service of documents – particularly when one party is self-represented. The commentary serves as a reminder for legal representatives to uphold a higher standard of care to enable fairness in proceedings.
Lucy Taylor’s article is a call to action for legal practitioners to recognise the imperative of adhering to procedural regulations, not only for the benefit of the judiciary but for the parties involved at every level of the family law system.
For those interested in delving deeper into the complexities of this judgement and its implications, the full text of the judgement can be accessed here.
