Family judge warns on cross-courting after councils express concern

The Designated Family Judge (DFJ) for Cheshire and Merseyside has issued a warning to solicitors and barristers in the area over ‘cross-courting’, after local authorities raised concerns that the practice was resulting in their social workers being delayed at court for unacceptable periods.

Writing in the July 2017 issue of Liverpool Law Society’s magazine Liverpool Law, Her Honour Judge Margaret De Haas QC said Cafcass had expressed similar concerns.

Judges have also stated that cross courting was now causing significant delays in the management of lists.

HHJ De Haas said the judiciary had always tolerated, at the Liverpool Civil and Family Courts, some cross courting as long as it did not inconvenience other court users and as long as other court users were aware that a barrister/solicitor was in another court and that no inconvenience would result to them.

The DFJ also said she had made it very clear that if a barrister or solicitor was to cross court they must bring this to the attention of the Judge/usher and obtain consent with the following being conveyed:

a) Which court are they due to appear in and what time.

b) When will they return to the court.

c) The fact that they have told everyone else in the case and there is no objection.

HHJ De Haas said: “We are all mindful of the cut back in resources however, that applies not only to the funding of cases but also to the resources of CAFCASS/Social Service and the court.”

She added that if there was cross courting such as to impact on the listing of a case and other court users, the judge would be at liberty to consider the following:

a) Calling the case into court notwithstanding the absence of one of the representatives.

b) Refusing to sign the relevant FAS form.

c) Requiring the advocate who has cross courted and delayed the court hearing to appear before her to explain his/her conduct.

d) Reporting the matter to the relevant Head of Chambers or senior partner/management partner of the solicitors’ firm.

The DFJ said: “I trust that this matter can now proceed without difficult and inconvenience to other court users.”