It is always good to be reminded of the basics, but it is probably best to not receive those reminders from a judge. Especially when it comes to trying a judge’s patience.

A family court judgment saw Mr Justice Peel make no apology for ‘speaking out in strong terms’ on the subject of over-long statements. 

Before digging into the judgment of an application at a pre-trial review in financial remedy proceedings, the judge noted that position statements of 15 and 18 pages had been lodged.

Reminding us of the ‘crystal clear’ 2016 High Court Efficiency Statement, the judge said: ‘Permission was not sought in advance to exceed the page limit for this interim hearing. I have said before on countless occasions, in court and publicly, that breaches of the two efficiency statements (one for High Court allocated cases, and one for cases allocated below High Court Level) are wholly unacceptable.’

The 600-page bundle – for a PTR – far exceeded the 350-page limit and ‘permission was not given for the bundle to exceed the page limit. It was simply lodged’.

He added: ‘I make no apology for speaking out in strong terms on this subject once again. Case management is a vital part of the financial remedies process, and legal representatives have a duty to assist the court in managing the cases efficiently and fairly. If counsel and solicitors are unfamiliar with these basic, essential requirements contained in the two efficiency statements (as seems to have been the case here), they should swiftly put that right.’

But it wasn’t all bad: the judge finished with his gratitude to counsel for submissions which ‘were focussed and of the highest quality’.

Topics