---

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2009

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Access To Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2009 be approved. Subject to the House’s approval, this statutory instrument will apply to appeals from decisions of magistrates’ courts’ family proceedings courts, known as FPCs. The proceedings affected are those which, by virtue of Section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, are or may be treated as family proceedings for the purposes of that Act and proceedings under the Child Support Act 1991. This statutory instrument will change the current destination of appeals from decisions of FPCs by providing that appeals from FPCs shall lie to a county court instead of to the High Court. It will also disapply appeals by way of case stated from family proceedings to provide a single process of appeal from decisions of FPCs. There are two main objectives of this reform. The first is to clarify and simplify the appeals process by removing the different processes to provide a single process of appeal from decisions of FPCs. This would make the appeal procedure from FPCs more user-friendly and easier to understand. The second objective is to optimise the use of available judicial resources by ensuring that, where appropriate, cases are determined at the lowest most appropriate level of the court system. This would enable the High Court to focus on matters that genuinely require its expertise. The current appeals processes from FPCs are complex, having been developed piecemeal over the years in a number of different statutes. First, there are different statutory provisions for different types of proceedings giving rights of appeal from decisions of FPCs. These are referred to in Articles 2 and 3 and 6 to 9 of the instrument. There are different ways of starting these appeals. These include filing a notice of appeal or lodging a notice of motion. Secondly, where there are no statutory rights of appeal against a decision of a family proceedings court, the means of challenging that court’s decision, other than by judicial review, is by an application to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court, which requires a party to make an application to the FPC asking the justices to state their case for the opinion of the High Court. In practice, these different processes can be complicated and difficult to understand, particularly to the litigant in person. For example, a family proceedings court makes a residence order in favour of a mother so that the child lives with her with contact provision in order that the father can see the child every Saturday. At the same time, the FPC makes a maintenance order compelling the father to pay maintenance to the mother. The father of the child decides to appeal against the FPC’s decisions about the amount of contact with the child and the level of maintenance to the mother. To appeal against the contact order, the father would have to file a notice of appeal in the family proceedings court in accordance with Section 94 of the Children Act 1989. However, to appeal against the maintenance order, the father would have to lodge a notice of motion under Section 29 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978. In the mean time, in my example, arrears of child support maintenance have mounted, which result in the magistrates’ court making a liability order. The father wants to challenge that liability order by appealing against it. The means of challenging it is for the father to make an application to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. As I hope the House will see from this example, the father would have exhausted three different processes to appeal against three decisions made by the same court in related proceedings concerning the same family. We argue that this instrument will simplify this complex procedure by providing a single process of appeal. The Government are committed to delivering fair and simple routes of access to justice by, among other things, using available judicial resources to best effectin order to provide effective, efficient and speedy civil and family court processes and procedures. The purpose, of course, is to promote public confidence in our court system and provide user-friendly court processes. This was the principle that underpinned our policy underlying two successful public consultations. The first, focusing judicial resources appropriately—the right judge for the right case—was a joint government and judicial initiative aimed at reducing the workload of the High Court Bench to ensure that cases are determined at the lowest most appropriate level of the court system commensurate with complexity. Part of those proposals were implemented in November last year with the introduction of the family law Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008, which sets out criteria for starting family proceedings at each level of court. One of the benefits of that allocation order is that more family cases will be started in the family proceedings courts and transferred from the county courts to the family proceedings courts. This would pave the way for county courts to have more capacity to hear more cases currently heard by the High Court Bench, including appeals from the decisions of family proceedings courts, which are currently heard by the High Court, and which this statutory instrument seeks to achieve. Recent statistics indicate that appeals from the family proceedings courts to the High Court are low. In 2008, a total of only 45 appeals were made. However, this figure does not include appeals issued in the district registries but the Government consider that the provisions of this statutory instrument are unlikely to lead to a significant increase in the workload of the county courts. The second public consultation which underpins this statutory instrument is the 2006 family procedure rules consultation. This consultation sought public views on proposals to introduce a single form of appeal notice, reroute appeals from FPCs from the High Court to the county court and abolish case stated appeals in family proceedings in order to provide an effective operation of the family justice system. As with the public consultation that I have just mentioned, a clear majority of respondents supported the policy proposals underlying the appeals provisions of the 2006 family procedure rules consultation. Comments provided by respondents formed the basis of the initial draft of this statutory instrument. The Government consulted further with more than 200 stakeholders, including the judiciary, legal professional bodies, the Family Procedure Rule Committee, consumer and representation bodies, charity organisations and other government departments with an interest in the proposals. That consultation sought views on the scope, the practicalities and the aims of this instrument. A majority of respondents who chose to comment supported the provisions of this statutory instrument, and some provided helpful comments which informed the final draft. The changes brought by this statutory instrument support an effective and efficient appeals process in the family justice system. It will clarify and simplify the appeals process, making it more user-friendly for court users. It will make more efficient use of available judicial resources by reducing pressures on the High Court Bench to enable it to concentrate on more complex cases. We hope that these changes will contribute to our commitment to deliver fair and simple routes of access to justice. I therefore commend this instrument to your Lordships’ House.