Luton Borough Council v PW and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 450 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: LU15C03851 |
| Date | 08 March 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 450 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb
Case No: LU15C03851
Re SW & TW (Human Rights Claim: Procedure)(No.1)
Roger McCarthy QC and Mai-Ling Savage (instructed by Local Authority Solicitor) for Luton Borough Council
Andrew Bagchi QC and Sylvester McIlwain (instructed by Edward Hayes LLP) for the Father (PW)
Barbara Connolly QC and Samantha Reddington (instructed by Northants Family Law Group) for the Maternal Grandmother (MT)
Alison Grief QC and Michael Edwards (27/28 February) John TughanQC (2 March) (instructed by Reeds solicitors) for the Children (SW and TW)
Hearing dates: 27 & 28 February, 2 March 2017
Approved Judgment
This version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
These proceedings concern two siblings: SW, a boy who is soon to be 14 years old and his sister, TW, who is 9. They are at the centre of four related applications before the court. Specifically:
i) They are the subjects of cross-applications issued under Part II Children Act 1989 ( CA 1989) separately by their father and maternal grandmother for 'private law' orders; these applications were issued in August 2015;
ii) They are subjects of, and respondents to, an application issued by Luton Borough Council on 29 September 2015 under Part IV of the CA 1989, for 'public law' (care or supervision) orders;
iii) They are co-claimants (with their father, PW) in applications brought under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( HRA 1998) for declarations and damages; the father's application was brought formally (albeit on the wrong court form) on 8 March 2016. The children's application was advanced in August 2016 within the body of a Skeleton Argument prepared for a court hearing at that time. The Claimants all seek relief against Luton Borough Council under section 8(3) HRA 1998.
This judgment is delivered at what was to be the conclusion of the final hearing of these applications. Regrettably, I have not been able to conclude the proceedings by which the children seek relief under the HRA 1998 ([1](iii) above), given what is now acknowledged to be a fundamental procedural defect with their claim. That said, I consider it important to deliver this judgment on the matters on which I am able to reach a conclusion, and on which I have reached a clear view at this point.
In order to set a context for what follows, I consider that it may be helpful if I identify at the outset of this judgment some essential procedural points about claims of this kind. This is a case which in some respects has veered 'off the rails'; in material respects it was never 'on the rails' in the first place. In doing so, I build on what I had said in CZ v Kirklees Council (" CZ v Kirklees") [2017] EWFC 11 at [9]:
i) It is of course appropriate for HRA 1998 claims which arise in, and on the same facts as, CA 1989 proceedings to be considered by the court within the CA 1989 proceedings. Section 7(1)(b) enables every tier of the Family Court, including the magistrates, to give effect to the parties' Convention rights (see Re L (A Child) v A Local Authority and MS [2003] EWHC 665 (Fam) at [31]); (I made this point expressly in CZ v Kirklees at [9](i), but repeat it as it sets the context for the sub-paragraphs which follow);
ii) However, HRA 1998 claims – whether they are made under section 7(1)(a) or section 7(1)(b)– are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ( CPR 1998) and not the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010);
iii) Applications for substantive relief (declarations and/or damages) under the HRA 1998 should be issued as civil proceedings by way of a Part 8 CPR 1998 claim, and should not be issued on a Form C2 (even if within existing CA 1989 proceedings). While rule 29.5(2) FPR 2010 requires the party who seeks to rely on a convention right under the HRA 1998 to notify the court of this intention by way of "application or otherwise in writing", it is, in my judgment, important that claims for substantive relief such as declarations and/or damages should be issued formally, even if made within existing proceedings; if the party is seeking to "rely on the Convention right or rights" ( section 7(1)(b)) within the CA 1989 proceedings to influence the manner in which the family court exercises its powers, a lesser degree of formality contemplated by rule 29.5 may well be appropriate. In my judgment, an application for substantive and significant relief should not be 'made' by a party's advocate merely introducing such a case (albeit "in writing") in a Skeleton Argument for court, as happened here;
iv) A child claimant in HRA 1998 proceedings requires a litigation friend appointed under Part 21 of the CPR 2010; the appointment of a guardian or litigation friend for this type of claim is not effected under rule 16 FPR 2010. While Cafcass accepts that Children's Guardians appointed in 'specified proceedings' may give advice about the appropriateness of a child making a HRA 1998 claim, Cafcass cannot authorise its officers to act as litigation friends to children claimants, having regard to its functions, which are set out inter alia in section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 ( CJCSA 2000) moreover, Cafcass does not, as a matter of policy, support Children's Guardians acting as litigation friends in HRA 1998 proceedings;
v) It is therefore not appropriate for a Children's Guardian who has been appointed in specified CA 1989 proceedings to act as an informal litigation friend, or 'front' the claim as if he/she is a litigation friend, in a related HRA 1998claim. The status of litigation friend can only be bestowed following one of two recognised formal processes – either the filing of a certificate of suitability under Part 21.4(3)/Part 21.5(3) or pursuant to court order ( Part 21.6);
vi) Given that the CPR 1998 applies to these claims, the regime of Part 36 CPR 1998 ('Offers to Settle') applies to them;
vii) The full costs regime in Part 44 CPR 1998 also applies, including (in contrast to the position in family proceedings) the general rule that 'costs follow the event' in HRA 1998 claims ( CPR, Part 44.2(2)(a): "(a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party"; see also CZ v Kirklees MBC [2017] EWFC 11 at [61]));
viii) Insofar as not clear from CZ v Kirklees, from P v A Local Authority [2016] EWHC 2779 (Fam) (Keehan J), or from H v Northamptonshire County Council & the Legal Aid Agency [2017] EWHC 282 (Fam) (Keehan J) (" H v Northamptonshire"), the publicly funded claimant in a HRA 1998 claim who is also publicly funded in associated (or 'connected': section 25 Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ( LASPO 2012)) proceedings, is vulnerable to a claim for recoupment of the costs of both sets of proceedings by way of statutory charge from any award of HRA 1998 damages;
ix) In HRA 1998 proceedings, the Legal Aid Agency may issue a publicly funded certificate for a claimant to pursue declarations only, and not damages, as it did in this case, for the father; if this is so, this may have implications for (a) entitlement to any public funded remuneration for the lawyers for the work done on seeking a damages award, (b) the extent to which the successful claimant can recover any costs referable to pursuit of the claim for damages from the Local Authority if they have not been authorised to expend costs in pursuit of the same, and/or (c) the ability of the LAA to recoup funds from the damages (applying the statutory charge) for work done in respect of which there was no public funding certificate;
x) This case illustrates once again that the cost of pursuing relief under the HRA 1998 can very swiftly dwarf, or indeed obliterate, the financial benefits sought. Many such cases are surely suitable for non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), and I enthusiastically recommend that parties divert away from the court to mediate their claims; I am led to understand that many Court of Protection disputes with similar characteristics are resolved away from the court room. This is a case which could/should have been self-referred for NCDR. Parties in cases of this kind would do well to remind themselves of the comments of the Court of Appeal in Anufrijeva v LB Southwark & others [2003] EWCA Civ 1406 [2004] 1 FLR 8 at paras 79–80:
"… we were concerned that, even if the proceedings were conducted as economically as possible, the cost of the proceedings would be totally out of proportion to the damages likely to be awarded. This has proved to be the position… The costs at first instance of each party were totally disproportionate to the amount involved. When the total costs of both sides are looked at including the appeal, the figures are truly horrendous, and the situation is made even more worrying by the fact that all the parties are funded out of public funds.
[80] The reality is that a claim for damages under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northamptonshire County Council and another v Lord Chancellor (via the Legal Aid Agency)
...CC and the Legal Aid Agency [2017] EWHC 282 (Fam) and Re W (children) (convention rights claim procedure) Practice Note [2017] 1 WLR 3451 as referred to in paragraph 5 of the position statement. The position statement, entitled ‘Position of the Legal Aid Agency as to the application of the ......
-
MS X and A Health and Social Care Trust and MS Y and In the matter of Mark and Tim (Removal: Injunction:Human Rights)
...High Court in England and Wales CZ and Others v Kirklees Council [2017] EWFC 11 and SW and TW (Human Rights Claims: Procedure No. 1) [2017] EWHC 450 Fam. In these cases the procedures and outworkings of claims under the Human Rights Act were considered by the court and in each case, declara......
-
Mr Charles Ayeh-Kumi v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
...v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182 Dawes and Beedle v Dawes and Dawes, [2017] (unreported) SW & TW (Human Rights Claim: Procedure) (No1) [2017] EWHC 450 (Fam) In the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] UKSC 8 R (on the application of Kay and an......
-
PW and Others v Luton Borough Council
...more of the context of my decision,I would refer to my decision in the case of In re W (Children) (Convention Rights Claim: Procedure)[2017] EWHC 450 (Fam); [2017] 1 WLR 3451, which was the judgment I delivered at the stage ofthe case at which I brought to an end the claimants’ false start ......