By Louise Walls
All lawyers who deal with public law proceedings are very familiar with the ongoing emphasis from the Courts for cases to be concluded within the 26 week statutory time limit under the Public Law Outline. Unfortunately, delays can arise in our cases for a variety of reasons.
The onus is on all of us to keep an eye out for delays which is disproportionate or unjustified and bring non-compliance to the attention of the Court. It is well known that delay in proceedings is harmful to the children who are at the very centre of all of these cases. Any extension to the timetable of proceedings must therefore be carefully scrutinised with reasons given by the Court authorising such an extension as to why this is necessary (PD12A para 6.2).
How does Amber underline that extending the timetable beyond the 26 week statutory time limit is not a ‘tick box’ exercise?
On 4th December 2024 HHJ Talbott gave an unequivocal Judgment in respect of unjustified delay for Amber (not her real name), 12 years old.
HHJ Talbott referred to the summarised position provided by MacDonald J in London Borough of Enfield v E (Unconscionable Delay) [2024] EWFC 183 to further emphasise the law and guidance available regarding any extension to the timetable for public law proceedings (paras 6-8). The delay in this case occurred in the Magistrates’ Court with the Local Authority’s application being made on 09.01.24 and an IRH having being listed on 08.07.24, the day before the 26-week statutory time limit expired.
HHJ Talbott scrutinised the directions which were extended well beyond the 26-week statutory time limit due to non-compliance. He highlighted that the Order made did not make any reference as to the reason for extending the case beyond the statutory time limit (para 13). Further non-compliance resulted in an application from the Local Authority seeking to re-timetable the matter which would have resulted in a further extension to week 52 although the application did not seek such an extension. This triggered an FCMH to be listed on 28.11.24 (week 46) at which the Magistrates recited that Amber was ‘a priority’ and the matter was listed as soon as possible before HHJ Talbott for there to be ‘effective judicial oversight’ (paras 16-21).
HHJ Talbott’s Judgment highlights the ‘compliance warnings’ and that it is for the Local authority legal department to notify the Court of non-compliance, and every party also bears this responsibility. At paragraph 27, HHJ Talbott concludes ‘In this case, I am satisfied that the Local Authority have had insufficient regard throughout for the negative impact on Amber of proceedings being extended as they have been’. A final Order was made by HHJ Talbott at the FCMH on 4th December, some 11 months after the Local Authority’s application was made.
If this update has raised any questions, please contact Louise Walls or our family clerks today to set up an initial conference.