A recorder has adjourned a family court hearing after finding the parties had come to it ‘in such a disordered and chaotic state that it is simply impossible to proceed in a fair way’.

Recorder Chandler KC noted in T v T and Others that, though ‘family judges manage to keep calm, carry on and roll up their sleeves … even in the family court there comes a limit’. He said: ‘That limit has been grossly exceeded in this case, which has come before this court for a listed three-day hearing in such a disordered and chaotic state that it is simply impossible to proceed in a fair way.’

The application for financial remedies was issued in March 2023 and seven directions hearings have since taken place, the judgment said.

Referring to an email sent by a paralegal stating that her firm would be instructed by the second respondent but could attend only on the second day, the judge observed: ‘While the paralegal who wrote the…email couched her message in apologetic terms, I consider it quite extraordinary that any court should receive a message to the effect that a lawyer proposes to attend mid-way through a final hearing.’

Criticising the applicant, for whom Michael Bailey appeared, instructed by MB Law Ltd, the judge said there was ‘no excuse’ for the ‘applicant’s disregard for procedural rules in preparing for this final hearing’. The judge made no finding of fact against any of the respondents.

Read more

Procedural breaches included the size of the court bundle. The main bundle and second supplemental bundle totalled 2,747 pages. The judge noted that ‘at no stage at any of the seven case management hearings has permission ever been granted (or seemingly, requested) to lodge a bundle in excess of 350 pages’. The judge said he was ‘not willing to retrospectively allow in an additional 2,400 pages’.

Other procedural breaches included missing statements of case, the late lodging of counsel’s position statement, further documentation filed on the morning of the hearing ‘which, if anything, only add to the general state of disarray’, lack of clarity as to the wife’s case in law, and lack of a qualified legal representative.

The judgment said: ‘In fairness to Mr Bailey, he points out that the court has made a series of orders for the appointment of a [qualified legal representative], without any effect. It appears that a QLR has not been appointed.'

Adjourning the final hearing, the judge said ‘the applicant’s breaches of the various procedural rules is so significant that I have no option but to adjourn’.