Having all been frustrated with the delays, expenses and general injustice caused by parties who fail to properly engage with proceedings, and exasperated by the apparent latitude afforded to parties who fail to comply with disclosure requirements, many will have reacted positively to the strongly worded criticism of the Local Authority by Sir James Munby in the recent children cases of Re W (A Child); Re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177 , in which he said “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.
Let me spell it out. An order that something is to be done by 4 pm on Friday, is an order to do that thing by 4 pm on Friday, not by 4.21 pm on Friday let alone by 3.01 pm the following Monday or sometime later the following week. A person who finds himself unable to comply timeously with his obligations under an order should apply for an extension of time before the time for compliance has expired. It is simply not acceptable to put forward as an explanation for non-compliance with an order the burden of other work. If the time allowed for compliance with an order turns out to be inadequate the remedy is either to apply to the court for an extension of time or to pass the task to someone else who has available the time in which to do it.”
He subsequently emphasised this view in his “7th View from the President’s Chambers”, saying:
“What I fear is an even greater cause for concern – and it is for me a real concern – is something symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated. 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. This 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. Both parties and non-parties to whom orders are addressed must take heed. Non-compliance with an order by anyone is bad enough. It is a particularly serious matter if the defaulter is a public body. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence: see Re W (A Child), Re H (Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 1177.”[1]
Soon afterwards, to ensure that no one can be in any doubt about the importance of orders being followed by all parties, not just public bodies, the case of Ball v Shepstone [2013] EWCC 7 (Fam) was published.
In this case the respondent husband failed to file or serve his Form E as ordered by the Court on 15th July 2013. He had been given until 12 August 2013, and wasting no time in dealing with his failure to produce evidence on time, the Applicant Wife issued an application for committal on 28 August 2013. HHJ Everall QC responded swiftly and decisively with an order for 14 day’s committal suspended until 14 October 2013 upon terms that the husband should produce his Form E by that date, as well as pay the costs of the application. The Judge stated: “I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a committal order for this contempt because the court needs to have a statement of means from the father so the court knows the father’s financial circumstances. The father has been ordered to file and serve such a statement of means and has failed to do so. There must be no further delay. These proceedings involve an application for the financial support of two children. It is important that the court has the information upon which it can make a proper order for the support of the two children.”
Hopefully this will signal the end to the wasted time, costs and money which arise from such failures. The message seems clear: comply or expect to face sanctions, which we should no longer feel hopeless in seeking.