Update on Applications for Pupillage 2016
The Pupillage Committee is currently reviewing and shortlisting applications received through the Pupillage Portal for pupillage commencing in October 2016. We plan to hold first and second round interviews during the weeks of 6th, 13th and 20th July. Applicants should receive confirmation as to whether or not they have been shortlisted for interview via the Pupillage Portal towards the end of June.
Clarification on Seeking Permission to Appeal
By Wing Yan Chan
This case involved an appeal brought by the trustees of a post-nuptial settlement against an order of Mostyn J, which varied that settlement by way of ancillary relief following a divorce between the spouses. The Court made awards in favour of the wife and the trustees appealed. It was agreed that the principles on which the court's power under section 24(1)(c) should be exercised are set out in Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380.
LJ Black, when determining the substantive issues and dismissing the appeal, held that the ambit of discretion was wide enough to encompass the order that Mostyn J made. Accordingly, the appeal could succeed only if the exercise of discretion was flawed. Black LJ determined that it was not, though she felt that a parallel reasoning based on need was "much more important" than that based on the sharing principle.
In the course of the appeal, counsel asked the court to consider Mr Justice Mostyn's second judgment, in which he dealt with the question of permission to appeal: Re P [2014] EWHC 2990 (Fam) – published sub nom AB v CB as a supplement to AB v CB [2014] EWHC 2998 (Fam).
Mr Justice Mostyn had expressed displeasure that the appellants were pursuing an application for permission directly to the Court of Appeal without reference to himself. The judge quoted the following passage from paragraph 52.3.4 of the notes to the White Book (2014 edition), which sets out five reasons why an appellant should, in the first instance, apply to the court below:
"(a) The judge below is fully seised of the matter and so the application will take minimal time. Indeed the judge may have already decided that the case raises questions fit for appeal.
(b) An application at this stage involves neither party in additional cost.
(c) No harm is done if the application fails. The litigant enjoys two bites at the cherry.
(d) If the application succeeds and the litigant subsequently decides to appeal, they avoid the expensive and time-consuming permission stage in the Appeal Court.
(e) No harm is done if the application succeeds but the litigant subsequently decides not to appeal."
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Jackson confirmed that there is no longer a rule requiring the appellant to apply to the lower court for permission (see rule 52.3 (2) and Practice Direction 52A, paragraph 4.1). However, it was his view that even under the current rules, it is still good practice for any party contemplating an appeal in the first instance to seek permission from the lower court. Ideally the party should do so when the judge delivers or hands down judgment. This is for the five reasons set out above. These observations apply both to family cases and to civil litigation generally.
London Legal Walk 2015
Chambers joined thousands of friends and colleagues on the annual London Legal Walk on 18 May 2015 to help raise funds for the London Legal Support Trust. Chambers raised over £800 for this very worth cause, but there is still time to sponsor us by clicking here to visit our fundraising page.
The trust works to support law centres and legal advice agencies in London and the South East by providing them with grant funding alongside other forms of support. They do this by holding large fundraising events, most notably the London Legal walk, and then delivering the funds raised to the agencies where they are most needed through grant rounds. They offer their knowledge and experience of the sector to help the agencies to become more sustainable and help to partner them with law firms and chambers who want to help them ensure that the law is fair.
The London Legal Support Trust is part of a network of seven Legal Support Trusts across England and in Wales working with the Access to Justice Foundation to support pro bono and advice agencies, ensuring funds can be distributed where needed most throughout England and Wales.
May 2015 Newsletter
The May 2015 edition of the chambers e-Newsletter, 'New Court News', is now available.
To download your copy, just click the link below:
New Court Chambers eNewsletter May 2015
This edition includes the following articles:
- Public Law Proceedings from the Perspective of EU Member States by Kyri Lefteri,
- Pupils' Perspectives by Kathryn Blair,
- The Rights and Wrongs of s.20 by Angela Burstow and Sarah Nuttall,
- News and updates from chambers, including details of how to sponsor our London Legal Walk team.
To subscribe to our e-Newsletter and receive a copy by email, just fill in your details here.
£750 raised for Great Ormond Street
Congratulations to Fahri Jacob Solicitors who won last night's Big Charity Quiz in aid of Great Ormond Street Hospital. The event was a huge success raising £750 for the children's charity. Special thanks goes to James Stammers and the clerks for putting the event together, and to @WeeklyQuiz for hosting the night.
It wouldn't have been possible to raise such a large amount without the very generous prizes we received. Thanks in particular to Middle Temple, Inner Temple Pegasus Bar, Lincolns Inn, Grays Inn, Mischcon de Reya, Fleet Street Press Coffee, Prince Charles Cinema and the Kings Cross Theatre.
London Legal Walk 2015
New Court Chambers will be taking part in the annual London Legal Walk on 18 May 2015, organised by the London Legal Support Trust. The walk covers 10km of London's park and river footpaths, starting and finishing at the Law Society on Chancery Lane.
The London Legal Support Trust works to support law centres and legal advice agencies in London and the South East by providing them with grant funding alongside other forms of support. They do this by holding large fundraising events, most notably the London Legal walk, and then delivering the funds raised to the agencies where they are most needed through grant rounds. They offer their knowledge and experience of the sector to help the agencies to become more sustainable and help to partner them with law firms and chambers who want to help them ensure that the law is fair.
The London Legal Support Trust is part of a network of seven Legal Support Trusts across England and in Wales working with the Access to Justice Foundation to support pro bono and advice agencies, ensuring funds can be distributed where needed most throughout England and Wales.
The walk is a huge event for the Trust with the 2014 event featuring over 8000 participants including the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court.
If you would like to sponsor the New Court Chambers Team then please click here to visit our fundraising page. Thank you for your support!
Direct Access Team Grows
New Court Chambers was one of the pioneering sets in Direct Public Access when barristers became authorised to undertake such work. As a result, Chambers has been able to offer direct advice and representation to the public for many years.
Our team of Direct Access barristers has expanded further with Dinali Nanayakkara, Sarah McMeechan, Sally Jackson, Robert Wilkinson and Matthew Richardson all recently qualifying as Direct Access barristers.
For more information about Direct Access and the sorts of services chambers can offer directly to lay clients, please visit our Direct Access page.
Extension of Supervision Orders
By Robert Wilkinson
I was recently instructed on behalf of parents in an application by a Local Authority to extend a supervision order. The twelve-month supervision order was nearing its expiry, and owing to a decline in the standard of care being offered to the children, the Local Authority wished to continue its engagement and work with the family for a further year.
The parents, showing a great deal of insight, acknowledged that they had let things slip over recent months, and were therefore not seeking to oppose the application. Nonetheless, the Guardian wished to undertake her own enquiries which would mean any final determination of the application would be a number of weeks after the expiry of the initial twelve-month term. The question of how the court should manage such an application, which was likely to straddle the expiry of the supervision order, therefore arose.
The court’s power to make a supervision order rests on the foundation provided by s.31 of the Children Act 1989, which does not require repeating here.
More specific characteristics of the supervision order are set out in Schedule 2, Paragraph 6 of the Children Act 1989:
- Subject to sub-paragraph (2) and section 91, a supervision order shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made.
- A supervision order shall also cease to have effect if an event mentioned in section 25(1)(a) or (b) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (termination of existing orders) occurs with respect to the child.
- Where the supervisor applies to the court to extend, or further extend, a supervision order the court may extend the order for such period as it may specify.
- A supervision order may not be extended so as to run beyond the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which it was made.
In the case of Re A (Supervision Order: Extension) [1995] 1 FLR 335, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, as she then was, set out the Court of Appeal’s views in respect of short extensions of supervision orders where it was not possible to conclude the substantive extension application prior to the expiry of the initial 12-month period:
“If the application to extend the supervision order is within time and opposed but the hearing date is after the original supervision order has expired, the court can make one or more short extension orders pending the determination of the opposed application.”
Lord Justice Hoffmann added:
“I see no reason why magistrates should not grant a succession of extensions to cover adjournments of the application if they think that the interests of the child and the principle of no delay so require.”
This position is also reflected by Herschmann & Macfarlane (Section C-16.11):
“On an application to extend a supervision order, the court does not have power to substitute a care order. There is power to make a succession of short, interim supervision orders pending the hearing of the application to extend.”
However, caution should be exercised in using the term ‘interim’, as the making of such an order is technically an extension of the substantive supervision order, rather than the making of a discrete interim order.
The Court of Appeal considered the issue of the duration of supervision orders more recently, in the case of Re T (A Child) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 199.
The Local Authority sought a supervision order lasting for three years due to a risk posed by the maternal grandmother’s partner who had a history of sexual offences. After reviewing the relevant sections of the Children Act, the trial judge concluded that he could make an order in those terms. The father appealed on the basis that the statute prevented the making of a supervision order for a period longer than twelve months from the outset.
In the leading judgment, Thorpe LJ, as he then was, considered the construction of para. 6(1) of Part II, Schedule 3 of the Act and concluded that the Local Authority could not "circumvent the clear words of paragraph 6(1)", which states "a supervision order shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made" and so the maximum initial duration of the order should be twelve months.
Turning to the question of when an application to extend a supervision order should be made, the Court of Appeal offered guidance at paragraphs 20 to 23, with Thorpe LJ noting:
"I would doubt the need for any application to extend a supervision order of twelve months duration before the last quarter of its first life".
Whilst the circumstances of each individual case may not always lend itself to the Local Authority issuing an application to extend two or three months prior to the expiry of the 12 months, the earlier the application, the more likely the court will be in a position to conclude the application within one or two hearings.
In my example, the problems that had led to the Local Authority seeking to extend the order were apparent some 3 months prior to the end of the supervision order. Had the Local Authority issued its application at that time, rather than 5 days before the order’s expiry, and invited the court to list a directions hearing shortly before the expiry, this would have provided sufficient time for the Guardian to undertake her analysis and the parents to provide statements, whilst keeping within the twelve-month period. With the parents not opposing the extension, as will often be the case, the proceedings could reasonably have been concluded in just one hearing.
Pension Reforms Come Into Force on 6 April 2015
By Elissa Da Costa-Waldman
April 6th 2015 is the day that the over 55s can unlock their pension savings and buy their Lamborghinis. To see Elissa Da Costa-Waldman's analysis of the effects, risks and steps to be taken by Family Practitioners when pensions are treated differently, click here.
Join Us For Our Charity Quiz, 29 April 2015
New Court Chambers is hosting its Big Charity Quiz and Raffle on Wednesday 29 April 2015 in aid of Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Chambers has a longstanding connection with the charity with many members raising money for the hospital by running marathons and half-marathons in recent years.
Reserve your place by filling in the form to the right, or by emailing/calling the clerks' room (clerks@newcourtchambers.com | 0207 583 5123).
Date: 29 April 2015
Time: 7.00pm
Venue: Ye Olde Cock Tavern, 22 Fleet Street, EC4Y 1AA
Ticket Price: £25 per team of 5 or 6
Payment: Cheques made payable to 'New Court Chambers'
RSVP and purchase tickets by 11 April 2015 to avoid disappointment.
There is a fantastic array of prizes to be won on the night, including:
- Champagne Afternoon Tea for 2 at the Pegasus Bar, Inner Temple.
- Three-Course Lunch for 2 in Middle Temple Hall.
- Three-Course Meal for 2, including wine, at the Lincoln's Inn Members Common Room.
- Lunch for 2 at Gray's Inn Hall.
- Two tickets to 'The Railway Children' at the King's Cross Theatre.
- Free Coffee for a month at Fleet Street Press Coffee House.
We are very grateful to Gray's Inn, Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Runaway Entertainment and Fleet Street Press for their considerable support.