This site uses cookies.

Case Report: M (Children: Applications by Email) [2021] EWCA Civ 806 - Harry Peto, Temple Garden Chambers

16/06/21. While a family case, this case highlighted the importance of the rules of procedure in instances of cases that are litigated by correspondence.

If a party applies to the Court by email, the fact that the application was made in this way and the fact that the application was decided without a hearing do not mean that the Court should not scrutinise the application with reference to procedural rules. The importance was stressed of the Court being mindful that rules and orders are to be complied with and that procedural fairness is upheld in the same way as it would be had the parties appeared in person.

While reference was made to the Family Procedure Rules (specifically r.184), the equivalent in the Civil Procedure Rules is r.23.3, which states that an application notice must be filed, and that an application may only be made without filing an application notice if this is permitted by a rule or practice direction, or the court dispenses with the requirement for an application notice.

R.18.9 of the Family Procedure Rules is mirrored by r.23.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, each providing that an application may be dealt with without a hearing if the parties agree or if the court does not consider that a hearing would be appropriate.

The Court held that the fact that it has given a general permission for applications to be made by email does not prevent the Court from requiring an application notice to be filed in a specific instance. Similarly, the Court must discriminate between applications that require hearings and those that do not.

The central point is that the same standards of procedural fairness must apply regardless of whether the general requirement for an application notice was dispensed with and regardless of whether a hearing is deemed appropriate by the Court.

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.