A judge in the High Court has said judgments being emailed directly to parties without the formalities of a hand-down process is ‘unsatisfactory and to be deprecated’. Mr Justice Hayden's comments followed a father's application to appeal findings of fact made by Judge Helen Arthur following a three-day hearing at the family court in Wolverhampton.
The application for permission to appeal was issued on 3 January this year, over five months out of time. The applicant had sought permission to appeal from the judge on 12 October last year, explaining that he ‘had only recently received the judgment’.
Arthur had become aware through the court office on 27 August that the father was inquiring about ‘if there has been any comeback from the judge’.
‘I had delivered the judgment via email over a month earlier on 25th July 2024’, the judge said. ‘I am aware that sometimes emails go directly to the “junk” folder without alerting the recipient, so I will give F the benefit of the doubt that he did not receive the judgment until 9 October 2024 as he states.’
But Hayden concluded he could not be satisfied that Arthur - who granted the father permission to appeal out of time - had jurisdiction to hear the application because he was unable to identify what date the judgment in the case had most likely been handed down.
Hayden explained that since the start of the pandemic reserved judgments in the family courts had been handed down electronically under a 'Covid Protocol'. ‘The practice has worked well and is now so embedded that it is been retained, notwithstanding that the Courts have resumed routine sitting in attended hearings’, Hayden explained. ‘However, there has been some confusion as to the point at which the decision (to be appealed) is actually made.’
Hayden emphasised that notice of hand-down of reserved judgment - even if they are to be handed-down remotely by circulation by email - must be given in the daily cause list. The judgment is then deemed to be handed down in court.
‘This is different from emailing the judgment directly to the parties, without the formalities of a hand-down process, which seems to have occurred here’ Hayden added. ‘Emailing a perfected judgment directly to the parties, without the procedural compliance identified above, is unsatisfactory and to be deprecated.’
Hayden considered the permission application afresh, granted permission to appeal out of time but then dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was totally without merit.
4 Readers' comments