Hello. Welcome everybody very pleased to welcome you to today's session through data law my name. So after a mood. So this is session to then on the topic surrounding finding of fact hearings in private and public Children law cases and today then I'll be developing further somebody aspects that I spoke about in the first session. So as you know, we're looking at private and public law matters and the first couple of sessions, I'm looking specifically at private law and then we're going to be developing into finding a fact hearings, particularly in public law cases. Also today I'm going to be focusing more so than on continuing with the discussion In relation to practice direction 12 J. But also I want to bring into play than the guidance from the recent court to appeal decision and H. N. That's the case decided just a few months ago On 30 March of this year. And then we'll look at some case law development since then also. So as always a buddy copyright acknowledgement here for you and therefore without further Ado I'm going to be continuing with practice direction at 12 J. You remember in the last session and I spoke about the presumption of parental involvement. I talked about Practice direction 12 J. Back in 2014 and then the amendments that came in on two October 20 17. We also looked at some of the case law surrounding of finding of fact hearings. Now one of the other things that practice direction 12 J also emphasizes is the mandatory duties upon the court. So you've got various paragraphs here, paragraphs 8, 14, 15, 18, 22 29. So it's, it's written throughout the practice direction, which is that when I say concessions are made when finals are made of abuse and it's important for the court to make sure that those are clearly documented and then they are uh certainly uh documented and not an appended to appropriate orders. So that for example, say admissions are made by say the father in the example that I used in the in the last last session and those may then be appended to the child arrangements order for example and the president did appreciate that. Yes, this may well mean that there are then additional uh, there is an additional burden for the court to make sure that this is required, but it is needed to make sure that is clarity for all Parties concerned. And then staying with that this next part then paragraph 10 and ties in with the concept of participation directions. We've got Part three, a practice Direction three AA with supplements uh the family procedures in relation to participation directions and this part of practice direction 12 J very much ties in with that so that if at any stage the courts advised by any party and at the moment this is done by way of application, although we may See a change to that as a consequence of the domestic abuse act of 2021 in terms of automatic participation directions in some respects. So at the moment, if a party applies for participation directions, uh, or calf castle, Kafka's comrades are suggesting that these may be necessary. And this is where the court may then provide for these. And and the practice directions specifically referred to these as special arrangements or special measures to protect the party or child attending any hearing and depending on what it is that's been sought and the court needs to ensure that they put those measures into place so that appropriate arrangements are made for the hearing. So that could be, for example, in relation to the waiting arrangements at court entering and exiting the courts of, for example, is said to alleged victim going to be able to enter and exit the courtroom court building using the route that the judges take, for example, as opposed to public in trends, are they going to have a separate conference room available for them to have discussions then with their counsel when their lawyers generally, are they going to have a screen provided to them so they don't have to face the other party in court and the other party can't see them. And of course, since covid, The onset of COVID in March 2020, many of us will have of course experienced having had undertaken, many many remote hearings. And because of that, even with remote hearings, we need to bear in mind participation directions. So for example, if you've got said a mother who's the alleged victim in a case of child arrangements, then if there's a there's a remote hearing and there's an expectation that both lawyers and clients put their cameras on, for example, is she going to be allowed to have a camera switched off so that the respondent cannot see her, cannot see her room, cannot see what's behind her when she puts her camera. And so you can see those type of things are absolutely crucial when it comes to that. And even though this practice direction is 2nd October 27, which is of course uh you know, some three years before the onset of covid. Um it still applies today, doesn't it? You can still has see how significantly, but of course it is going to need to be updated and there is certainly need to do that in light of developments of the last 34 years. Yeah. So staying with the position Surrounding assistant victim and very important then uh to to make sure that appropriate measures are taken. So you've got, for example, paragraph 19 K which provides in cases where the alleged victim is unable for reasons beyond their control to be present at the hearing. Maybe abandonment cases, for example, then the court needs to see how best can we enable them then to participate uh in that regard. So for example, the use of video link, for example, and as you'll appreciate, again, because of Covid, we've all become a lot more accustomed to the use of remote hearings. So setting up video link technology, setting up hearings through M. S. Teams through zoom through CVP through Bt my butt and the other systems, it's nowhere near as complicated as it used to be and it does work a lot more smoothly than it ever has done. So hence you can see that this former technology is significantly of benefit to alleged victims in these circumstances as well. Now, one of the issues that I wish to pick up on at this stage is the issue of interim orders into and child arrangements or to specify spending time with otherwise having contact. So let's put this into context. Let's say you're acting for the father and he's put an application for child arrangements specifying spending time with otherwise having contact. Mother is opposing mother is raising allegations of domestic abuse. Uh Now the court decides based on the allegations that are made and and the response that father has given where he formally denies all the allegations. The court does decide to list a matter for finding a fact hearing. And let's say it's not listed for another say six weeks. Now hitherto, father was having contact say twice weekly. It then stopped. He quite rightly in accordance with the child arrangements program and the family procedure rules through lawyers tried to negotiate with mother. He went down to Miami route sadly that didn't uh settle matters. He then lodged the application to see 100 then we've had the Phaedra and the court has now listed the matter. So let's be say it's been a couple of months at least since he last saw his Children. Now, the difficulty, of course, for him and indeed the Children is if it's now put off for finding a fact here and say for another six weeks, if not longer, then of course there is that continuation of no contact between him and the Children, which, as you can imagine, won't necessarily served to further the Children's best interests. So, with that in mind, if I was acting for the father in these circumstances, I have to be alive to paragraph 20 Five of practice direction 12 J. Because I have to be telling him this. Which is if he's seeking for me to uh certainly make representations were caught for there to be interim child arrangements pending the finding of fact hearing. The court would then have to bear in mind that where the court has given directions for finding a fact hearing or where these allegations which are disputed otherwise undetermined, then it does say that the court should not make an interim child arrangements order in his favor unless they're satisfied. Firstly, that's the interests of the child to do so. So we're going to have to argue that. And secondly, I would have to satisfy the quartet would not expose the child or indeed the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm. Now, I know some lawyers take the view that this has raised a presumption against contact. It certainly doesn't say that. But you can see that the court almost starts on the basis that there shouldn't be making disorder unless they feel that it's basically in the interests of a child to do so. And as long as they are satisfied that it won't expose a child or the other parent is unmanageable risk of harm. So, as you can see, it's it's not an easy hurdle to get past to be able to justify that. There should be that in from contact. Having said that it was for the father in these circumstances. In example, I've been using I would also be making reference specifically To paragraphs 26 and 27 of practice direction 12 J. Because this will of course help him and how peace cause for there to be interim contact pending the finding of fact hearing. So, looking at these two paragraphs in particular. These then in practice direction 12 J. 1st and foremost, specify that in deciding whether any interim child arrangements order should be made. Not. The Courtney's are taken to account of matters in The Welfare Check List. The Children Act of Age nine. And of course, if we're relating to adoption related matters under the A. C. A 2002. So, for example, if there's an S. G. O. Special gunship publication before the court and then there's allegations of abuse? That's where the A. C. A. Can then come into play. There also uh as as can save, there's a for example placement application. But so this the welfare check lists respectively. And and the other is the court needs to give regard to the likely effect on the child and on the care given to child. But a parent who's made the allegation of domestic abuse of any contact and risk of harm, whether it's physical, emotional, psychological and which there may either they or the child may suffer as a consequence of making or decline in the order. So you can see it comes back to what is the risk of harm. Whatever format that may take if we do allow contact or indeed if we do not if we don't. So you can see it works both ways. So, for example, if the court decides not to facilitate interim child arrangements, could this lead to a child suffering emotional harm, for example? So one has to wait up that way as well. And then you've got paragraph 27 where the court also needs to take into account in deciding whether to allow the syndrome contact. They need to ask themselves, well, what kind of arrangements can be put into place, for example, um can can be contact, be putting away we do any harm to a child could be minimized. Uh so that the child uh certainly eliminated in the sense that is the safety of child such that can be secured. And if so how what if the contact would be supervised for example, will eliminate the risk of abuse in the circumstances that suggested. What if it's supported contact sort of facilities available for the father to have contact in a particular setting, for example. Uh and if so, who could then facilitate that contact? And what circumstances is there contact center available for example. And again, you can appreciate that sense. The onset of covid. Certainly since the first lockdown in March 2020 or contact centres closed and of course as the social distancing restrictions were eased, uh things gradually Started improving. And as of now August 2021. Although contact centers, many of them have reopened. As you can appreciate, there are still a lot of limitations that still um a lot of expectations in many of these centers to ensure that appropriate PPE E is used. Uh And therefore the the availability of contact centers is still somewhat limited, but one has to look at that and see what the availabilities of appropriate facilities for that purpose. And if direct contact is not appropriate, then one needs to ask themselves as to whether it's indeed in the child's best interests to make in order for indirect contact. So very very important. I would suggest that if the evidence before the judges that any form of contact between a child and and the parent who is seeking contact will be detrimental to your child. And that's one thing. But if the face to face supervised contact cannot be facilitated or it is not in the child's best interest to do. So then what about indirect contact? And as you can imagine again, because of covid we've had to uh become more um used to and also make more better use of technology to ensure that indirect contact has been maintained. So for example, not just cards, gifts, letters, but also of course contact through facetime, uh through WhatsApp, uh Facetime for example, uh and of course the email through text uh and so forth. So as you can imagine, even the contact which does take place, sometimes it can be done through facetime, for example. Uh and uh as you can imagine, sometimes it could even take the form of activity based, so that sometimes the contact maybe where it's not just speaking to a child through Facetime, for example, But as the child is doing their homework, for example, if you as a child is engaging in some activity, the parent is there and engaging with them. If the child is playing a game, for example, playing, I'm not putting together, I don't know if they're like lego for example, if they're putting together a lego set for example and any other parent is actually also watching them, seeing them helping them and so forth. So you can see technology has just moved on significantly so that even that form of contact uh can be set up and may well be beneficial for the child. So I think we have to kind of I would suggest think outside the box sometimes and look to see well actually if it's safe to do so, can we facilitate that contact? Mhm. Okay. And linked with that, even though it's quite an old case now, but it's very useful in this case of SS and chaos. Uh And this is where there was the first part of finding a fact hearing, what was heard, but didn't need to be put off its part heard and it wasn't going to be heard for several months for four months in fact. And Mr. Justice heavily who heard this case was concerned that if pending the determination of defining effect, it meant that father was to have no contact face to face contact with his Children. Of course, that would be more uh damaging to the Children indeed to to their relationship with their father. So what his lordship did do here is his lordship said, that would be wrong to not order in from contact in these type of situations. Uh Given the fall the part Hood hearing wasn't going to be heard for another four months and uh there was a need here to facilitate some interim contact bearing in mind contact had taken place for so long. And what the judge did is of course safeguards need to be put in place. And what the judge said was this is how I'm going to order it. There will be interim contact between the father and the child. It will be merely once a fortnight for an hour. It was strictly supervised and what father to obtain and pay for the supervised contact. But at least um he's got the means we have to do that. And secondly, at least it's going to enable that relationship between the father and the child to be maintained pending the conclusion of the finding of facts. So you can see the significance of cases like this right now. The next question I wanted to ask is when you are before the court and the court has then been invited to consider listing a matter for finding a factor. And we need to ask ourselves as to when and what type of situations will allegations of domestic abuse lead the court to list in the matter for a finding of fact hearing. Because of course not all allegations will lead to the court decided to enlist it for finding a factoring. And this is where we need to be clear about Paragraphs 16 and 17 of practice direction 12J which then gives us some very useful information as to whether or not to list a matter for finding a factoring in private law. So let's have a look at that then. So this then goes on to say that the court should then determine as soon as possible, whether it's necessary to conduct a finding affecting in relation to allegations of domestic abuse which are disputed. So, so then go on and consider the final welfare based orders in relation to child arrangements. Okay? Uh, and then, uh, before it considers that the need for any domestic abuse related activities, such as domestic violence perpetrator program, for example. So the court needs to determine as early as possible. And as you'll appreciate this will often then be done at the federal, the first hearing dispute resolution appointment whereby the court will then decide whether or not those allegations of domestic abuse do need to be litigated on and if so, in what manner and how and tied in with that, then, uh, it goes on to say that in deciding whether it's necessary to then conduct a finding of fact here in, the court needs to consider first and foremost the views of the parties and of calf castle Kafka's country. So what's the view of the mother, the father? Kafka's in the circumstances? Are there any admissions by party which provide a sufficient basis on which to proceed? So for example, has an example, I've been using the father made some concessions as he made some emissions and could those then be sufficient to enable according to move on to the welfare element and then decide on the application of child arrangements or actually other uh admission so limited, or there no submissions, in which case, that wouldn't be possible. What is somebody that we see two public funding and whether the evidence required to be provided to obtain public funding provides a sufficient back your basis. So, I hope we already got evidence there, for example, that the court will take that into account as well, but also whether there's any other evidence available to court, uh provides a sufficient basis on which to proceed. So are there any other parts of evidence which then give you sufficient factual matrix, for example, is the police evidence? Is there medical evidence which I substantiate the allegations and which made them obviate. And avoid the need for a finding of fact hearing. And can these issues be determined with the finding of fact hearing. So, is it possible for the parties to reconsider their position to see if it could be resolved in that way? And what is the nature of the evidence? But one of the key elements I would suggest is sub paragraph G. And this is the point that I know what I've done hearings uh in this issue, this is the keep element I would suggest uh which which brings into play as to whether or not the matter should or should not be listed for finding a factoring. So, it's sub paragraph G. Which is whether the nature and the extent of the allegations if proven, would be relevant to the issue before the court and I would suggest that is perhaps one of the key elements here which the court take into account in deciding whether or not to list a matter for a finding of fact hearing. So what I mean by that is if, say the mother in the examples I've been using has put together a number of allegations of domestic abuse allegedly perpetrated by the father to her in the President of the Children or otherwise. The judge needs to ask themselves if I find any of these allegations, the same others provided in a scott schedule five allegations of abuse. The judge needs to ask themselves, given the nature of the extent of these, even if I find one of these, or more than one if proven, is it relevant to the issue before the court? So, will it have a bearing on whether I for example, I'm going to be allowing the father to have contact with the Children. And if it is, then of course, that would then assist the court decided to list it for finding a fact. But if it doesn't, for example, if the allegations are somewhat historical, mother has raised these allegations, but even after what allegedly happened, she still let their father see the Children and so forth. Then in those kind of situations, you may find that the court may take the view that it may not be relevant to the issue before the court. And of course the court has to look at proportionality is it proportionate and that's where the court may limit the allegations. That may limit the the nature of what it is that will be addressed. Mhm. Which really brings me onto the significant case law which has developed over the last uh certainly 67 months since the turn of this year, which which I wanted and then pick up on and this kind of turns on first and foremost, issue of similar fact evidence, and then also the analysis of coercive and controlling behavior. Where the first case I wanted to pick up on is this case of F and N. F M N. Uh 2021 decision handed down by Mr Justice Hayden sitting in the family court. So, this was a judgment handed down on the 15th of january of this year. Now, the Court of Appeal had previously decided on the issue of similar fact evidence. So, if, for example, this findings made that as in this case, the father has uh subjected these first partner to controlling the cursor behavior. And then that's findings are being made have been made in Children seniors and then say later, he forms a relationship with another person and there's very similar attributes there. Then it's possible to use the evidence from the first set of proceedings by way of disclosure and producing that as evidence to then be used in a second set of proceedings In terms of similar fact, of course, the court will then need to decide the probative nature of its or what level of evidence and weight will be attached to it. How will it be used given its findings that are made, given its uh evidence that's already been tested. Of course it wouldn't be possible to go back and and uh relitigate on that sort speak, but it will still be evidence which will then go towards demonstrating a pattern of behavior. So that's one of the first things that F. And M. Highlighted. But the other thing about this case is this it was one of the uh significant cases uh of late which really brings home the impact of course when controlling behavior and just to give you some of the facts of this case. The father here, he had formed a relationship with with a particular lady. Uh they moved in together. The relationship got off very quickly, but then after a while he started um alienating his partner from her family. So for example when her mother used to doing wanted to speak to her, the father used to have the phone and loudspeakers of that. He would listen to all the conversation. He wouldn't necessarily give the phone to his partner. So he would be the one who's really dominating that conversation. He wanted to alienate her from her family and friends. So they moved homes many many times just to really get away. Um He used to control her money that she had. The food is to give a minimal amounts of money per week to enable them to use that for for what she needed. Um Also, she was uh in a in a situation where she was studying at university and he encouraged her to give up study, which she was very upset about. So again, it was a way of controlling her and distancing her from friends and family and from the outside world. Sometimes she used to go to her family and just sit outside. She was desperate to get help from her family but was so controlled by him that she was unable to do. So. Her mother was very worried that she called the police and said, look, I haven't heard from her daughter for so long. And um when the police went and spoke to her, she said, look, my family are just interfering and tell them to keep away type of thing. And then again, this was because of the level of coercive and controlling behavior that he was importing upon her. So you can see a long line of forms of coercive and controlling behavior that went on for some time. It wasn't something that you can just pigeonholed in terms of one or two instance, this went on for a very long time. And as you can imagine, it perpetuates and gets greater and greater and greater and that's really one of the things that his lordship said here. Because to show this, there has to be a pattern of behavior. And sometimes it could be very difficult for professionals to identify this form of abuse because going back as far as those four quarter appeal cases that I mentioned earlier in the year 2000, we L V M and H. And also the V. A. Case that I mentioned of 2000 and five. We've all been accustomed now and have got used to this idea of using Scott schedule schedules of allegations where in relationships have a long they've been, 30 40 year relationship. Sometimes if not longer, we are effectively having to almost pigeon hole the elements of abuse into about 4-5 instance. And we've kind of become acclimatized to do that. But what this case has highlighted is maybe that's not the appropriate way to do it in all cases. And what his lordship said is that intense focus on particular specified instance may in fact be counterproductive. Because the problem with that is it does wonder s than of obscuring the serious nature of harm perpetrated a pattern of behavior. Now, this is something that was highlighted last year anyway by the expert panel to the Ministry of Justice. Is the report that you may want to have a look at. You haven't, what it looked at. It's called assessing risk of harm to Children and parents in private. Lord Children case of june 2020. And this was one of the things that was highlighted in that report. So one of the things that his lordship said is that what scott schedules? Um There could be limitations in the use of those, particularly when you've got cases involving coercive and controlling behavior. In fact, it may render uh the use of these in these cases ineffective and actually unsuitable. So the idea is, for example, if you've got a pattern of behavior and pattern of behavior related to coercive and controlling behavior, to be able to expect a lawyer, for example, to literally Look at that pattern of behavior and condense it down to about 4-5 instance, naturally that will mean that you'll be missing out certain things and the ones you'll be missing out. It runs the risk of obscuring the serious nature of what you're trying to establish this kind of pattern of behavior. And therefore maybe in those kind of cases, his lordship said that scott schedules really are perhaps a lot less beneficial uh in those types of cases. But because the court of appeal, we're looking at this, there was a court appeal judgement to surround the corner. His logic quite rightly felt that it was more appropriate for more senior judiciary to give more guidance on this. And of course that's exactly what's happened. So that we now have the court of appeal guidance on this. This was a case of Hey Chen and others. Children, domestic abuse finding a fact here and it's a very Length judgment this one, it was handed down on 30 March of this year is a very lengthy judgment and one that if you haven't Already read, I would suggest you do. Um it involved four appeals and hence why The judgment is lengthy because it's four cases in one involving Alex applications for child arrangements and allegations of domestic abuse that had been raised. So involved four pills, each of which involved in allegations of abuse by one parent against the other in each of the respective cases. And it's a joint judgment given uh handed down by the President of Family division as well as later Justice King and Lord Justice Polaroid. And the court took the opportunity to then provide all of us with some generalized guidance and some very specific guidance also about matters which commonly arise in the family court relating to finding a fact hearings and the use of scott schedules. And again, there was reference to the F and M case in this judgment. It was also the reference to the panel report, I mentioned the harm report of June 2000 and putting that together to court appeal took the view that uh how just like Mr Justice Hayden said in the FN M case that in cases particularly of course we're truly behavior where one is trying to demonstrate a passion of behavior. Um The use of scott schedules can actually be more uh of certainly less benefit than than otherwise. Uh and the Court of Appeal did say that how we move away from the use of scott schedules too, is to be achieved maybe by having a form of a pleading such as what you would have maybe in a care case. In terms of the threshold document was something that was a difficult question to answer. So, a number of suggestions were put to the Court of Appeal and consideration on this. So do we have a threshold type document like we do in care cases, for example, in these cases, do we have formal pleadings by whether particulars of claim? Do we bring in a kind of civil procedure element on this, or do we have a narrative statement and prescribed format so that as well as having a uh scott schedule, do we also have a narrative statement which enables the parties to then set out uh in more detail in a narrative context, That pattern of behavior started to cook and then consider that alongside the Scots schedule and or evidence to then decide what findings, if any uh to to make and the court to appeal was was very much really toying towards a leaning more towards the narrative statement. So, the court did say that the particular advantage of a narrative statement is that allows 1 to then focus on the overall nature of the relationship. So it gives you uh the opportunity to be able to set out more uh in detail, of course, uh the the extent of the uh the the alleged abuse in those circumstances over that period of time. Uh and uh and in what manner and therefore such an approach would then allow the court to identify at an earlier stage also as to whether an allegation of controlling coercive behavior is indeed an issue or not. So you can see the thinking behind that. So it certainly takes that box as well, allowing this to be done. So the court appeal said that the process uh was such that we need to maybe moving away from the use of scott schedules in these types of cases. Uh and um we need to therefore look at some of the other options going forward. But given that this is something that needs to be looked at in more detail in line with the harm report of June 2000 also the proposed changes to the child arrangements program. Practice Direction 12 G 12 B. Uh Given that the working party on that headed up by Mr Justice Cobb has been already looking at this. The court appeal said that really would be for others, developed suggestions into new guidance and rule changes going forward with these types of matters. But for now, the court said of course these changes may need to be done then to the private law working group together with the harms report. But for now, until maybe there is a change to practice duration, until there is a change to the rules on this, it was suggested that in every case uh where domestic abuse is alleged, then both parents maybe should be asked them to describe in short terms, either in a written statement or really a preliminary hearing, the overall experience of being in a relationship with each other. So, the idea that there is this narrative statement that one does and it shouldn't have to be too detailed of course, but sufficiently enough to then enable both of them to be able to give details of this alleged pattern of behavior and for the other person to be able to respond to that and that will then assist the court alongside any scott schedule that's been done and looking to see whether the whether controlling because coercive behavior is actually a live issue in the case and also then looking to see how to test that evidence and to hear evidence. Uh live evidence or submissions and then ultimately then to make a decision as to whether any findings are to be made or otherwise. So does the position as we have it. And since the since this decision, there has in fact been a relatively recent judgment just last month on this actually. So, I wanted to bring this to your attention. So this was a case of a against B b Uh so this was a recent decision just handed down by mrs Justice Judge on two July this year by the High Court. And this was an appeal which related to decision by the first instance, judged the recorder who had decided to exclude certain evidence from a finding of fact hearing where there had been allegations of domestic abuse. And this was a case where by the father had sought contact. Mother opposed mother had raised allegations of domestic abuse and a court like they ordinarily will do made directions that take case management hearing uh for the parties to file a schedule, a scott schedule Schedule of allegations limited to five allegations. So, of course, mother who was made in making the allegations against father would or he also made allegations against Mother. They were both limited to uh setting out five allegations. And then for the other two, of course respond and there was no appeal against that, that had been the case and that had been decided by the case by the judge for some time. But when it then came to the fact finally hearing, which sadly, um couldn't go ahead anyway, given the difficulties over time and the court not being able to start on time. So, you had to be adjourned off anyway. But at that hearing, one of the things that the father raised was that in mother's evidence that she'd found mother's narrative statement, not only had she gone over and above what those five allegations were that she put in a scott schedule, but also she gave a lot more additional information. So his argument was that mother's statement had in more detail and examples of the abuse that she alleged that father had inflicted, not just on her, but also the Children. And the mother took the view that the fathers abusive behavior to her was constant. So there was this pattern of behavior and that he had become more abusive and violent to herself and the Children. So she had not only expanded by way of giving more instance in her scott schedule. So, in a narrative statement over about what was in the scott scott schedule, but also she added more detail in terms of the circumstances of that uh, too almost provide that passionate behavior. But the father took the view uh that in accordance With the family procedures, in the corners, uh, with the court's right to control evidence. Part 20 two, for example, of the family procedures. Uh the uh, court on The part 21, of the FPR can decide how to test the evidence. And with that in mind at the father took the view, uh that in cases such as this, uh, certainly the court should be limiting the mother to only produce that evidence which goes towards uh the the specific allegations that she had made in the scott judging and nothing else. But in fact the court took a different view. The court very much specifically referred to the a train cases I mentioned earlier, and also the FN FM decision that I mentioned earlier, and the court did say, look, there will be occasions uh where judge refuses to admit relevant evidence produced at the last minute before hearing, uh where for example, it's not highly significant in relation to the other evidence or if it can't be fairly improperly adduced without a german. So, you know, that's there and that's understandable, but here, but these allegations that mother raised not only with a highly significant, but also the hearing had to be adjourned in any event, uh because uh there wasn't the time available at this finding of fact hearing to actually hear these live issues. So on balance, the court did allow the appeal and they said the finding of fact hearing uh was to be relisted, uh and they would need to be more time to hear the nature and scope of what needs to be considered sort of court did in fact allowed the appeal. So, you can see this case very much ties in with what H. N. Is dating about the fact that we have to be very careful that if you're trying to demonstrate this pattern of behavior, particularly in case involving controlling a coercive behavior that may be limiting that to scott schedules and not allowing one to do maybe a narrative statement or to give all evidence, providing more detail and expanding on that. Uh, may actually be limiting the way in which we are determining those facts. And therefore you can see that this is the first case that's come out of Hay Chen, which is famous, therefore requiring us as lawyers to almost refocus and, and we think as to how we deal with these types of cases. All right. So you can see it's a very, very significant decision going forward. Okay, So that then brings this session to an end. So you can see respect favorite time. Then today, going through developing practice direction 12 J but also looking at the position with some of the more recent case law developments in this field. Can I thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope that's been A useful session for you and I'll speak to you next time with session three. Thanks very much. Bye for now.
webinar
Slides
12841 Users
1275 Courses
931 Reviews
