Victoria Steele, Author at Parklane Plowden

Expertise

Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Newcastle barristers Parklane Plowden relocate to city centre to further enable growth plans

<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/">Parklane Plowden Chambers</a> has announced it is relocating from its Newcastle premises in Lombard House on the quayside to new premises within Portland House in the city centre.  The set will move out of Lombard House at the end of June 2023 and, after a short stay in serviced offices, is expected to move into Portland House in September. The move is part of the set’s ongoing strategic growth plans and will also bring them closer to Newcastle Civic Centre where the Newcastle Civil & Family Courts and Tribunals Centre is located.  The relocation will see Parklane Plowden’s members and team of six clerks, led by chambers’ director Michael Stubbs and practice director Sharon Robson, occupy 2,000 sq ft of newly refurbished Grade A office accommodation on the first floor of the Grade-II listed building on New Bridge Street.  Sitting opposite the Laing Art Gallery, Portland House benefits from being adjacent to the city’s redeveloped Pilgrim’s Quarter, a prestigious project which is part of the historic Pilgrim Street development.  The Grade II listed part of Portland House includes a 19th century maternity hospital designed by famed architect John Dobson. The building was later the local headquarters of the BBC and was used during the filming of the Ken Loach film I, Daniel Blake.  Commenting on the relocation, head of chambers, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/james-murphy/">James Murphy</a>, said: “Our new accommodation at Portland House will provide us with a high quality, flexible workspace in an excellent location in the heart of the city.  “We pride ourselves on being a vibrant and progressive set and this move demonstrates our commitment to providing excellent outcomes for our clients and being the place where talented people want to work.  “As part of our ongoing investment strategy, which saw the extensive refurbishment of our Leeds premises in 2021, the Newcastle relocation will give us room to grow and welcome more members and staff colleagues.”  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/clerks/michael-stubbs/">Michael Stubbs</a>, chambers’ director, said “Leaving the quayside after over two decades in Lombard House is an exciting next step for chambers and for our clients.  “Our core practice areas of chancery and commercial, employment, family and clinical negligence and personal injury have grown dramatically over the last fifteen years and this move will enable us to further build on that success. Our progressive approach to practice management will be reflected in our new and modern workspace. Sharon, the team, and I cannot wait to get settled in and show our loyal clients our new home.”  Parklane Plowden provides unrivalled strength and depth of expertise with 59 barristers rated by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 where it is ranked as a band one set on the North-eastern Circuit in nine practice areas.

REPLAY: Anatomy of a trial, 22 June 2023

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gt0vIwcfPjo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>   Parklane Plowden's Employment Law with Lunch seminars bring you the latest law updates.  Barrister and employment specialist Stuart Roberts discusses: Anatomy of a trial - taking you through a 7 day trial in the Tribunal: the issues, challenges and tactics for a complex trial, spanning claims of race and sex discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal: from initial instruction, through the trial to the remedy hearing.

Parklane Plowden Chambers Dedicated Service Lines

As part of our ongoing drive to continually improve services for our clients, we are delighted to announce the introduction of telephone lines to provide direct access to our teams of clerks dealing with specific practice areas.  If you are using a laptop or desktop to access our website, you are now able to find our dedicated service lines below:  <figure class="wp-block-gallery has-nested-images columns-default is-cropped"> <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2023/06/Direct-dials-onthe-webiste-3-1024x169.png" alt="" class="wp-image-8226"/></figure> </figure>   If you are using a mobile or tablet to access our website, you will be able to find our dedicated service lines by clicking on the phone icon. Please see the two images below:  <figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"><img src="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2023/06/Phone-dials-1024x747.png" alt="" class="wp-image-8210" width="585" height="426"/></figure>   You can also access our dedicated service lines via our <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/contact/">contact</a> page, on the website.

Fail to plead, fail to succeed

The case of Sindra Bilal & Anor v St George’s University NHS Foundation [2023] EWCA Civ 605 provides a useful reminder to ensure issues are pleaded if they are to be advanced at trial.  Factual Background  Mr Malik underwent emergency spinal surgery on the 14 July 2014 which was successful but left Mr Malik with neurological damage.  On the 13 July 2015 Mr Malik attended the outpatient clinic of Mr Minhas, Consultant Neurosurgeon, reporting terrible pain in the left side of his back with left side intercostalgia. Mr Minhas advised Mr Malik to undergo further revision surgery which was performed on the 13 August 2015.  Following the surgery, Mr Malik’s symptoms became worse, and he suffered paraparesis rendering him wheelchair dependent.  First instance  The allegations in the Particulars of Claim revolved around the consultation on the 13 July 2015. To summarise there was an alleged failure to obtain informed consent from Mr Malik, a failure to properly advise Mr Malik of the risks of further surgery, and the failure to recommend other treatment alternatives. Crucially there was no pleading which related to the failure of Mr Minhas to ascertain how long Mr Malik had been suffering from intercostalgic pain.  It was alleged that, had Mr Malik known the risks of the surgery, he would not have undergone the same.  At trial, the judge preferred the evidence of Mr Minhas and found Mr Malik had been complaining of serious and debilitating intercostalgic pain on the 13 July 2015 which demanded quick intervention for relief.  The judge found that a responsible body of competent and reasonable neurosurgeons would have offered the Mr Malik revision surgery. He was not persuaded that it was negligent Mr Minhas did not discuss other treatment options. The judge acknowledged that, whilst Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11; [2015] AC 1430 (‘Montgomery’) identified the duty to take reasonable care to ensure a patient was aware of reasonable alternative treatments, in this case a responsible body of spinal surgeons would have concluded that there were no reasonable alternatives.  As to causation, the judge was not satisfied that Mr Malik would have rejected the revision surgery even if other alternatives were discussed.  Appeal  The estate of Mr Malik appealed on the basis the judge was wrong in law:  <ol type="1"> <li>To hold a responsible body of competent and reasonable neurosurgeons would have offered Mr Malik revision surgery without any knowledge of the duration of his intercostalgic pain.</li>  <li>To hold that had Mr Malik had been made aware of reasonable alternatives and given his informed consent.</li>  <li>To hold causation was had not been proved.</li> </ol>  Ground 1  Lady Justice Nicola Davies considered the case of Lombard North Central PLC v Automobile World (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 20 at §75 which set out ‘It remains a basic principle of our civil procedure that the factual case the parties wish to assert at trial must ordinarily be set out in their statement of case… It is essential to the conduct of a fair trial that each side should know in advance what case the other is making…’.  She highlighted that it was apparent from as early as the consultation letter, dated 13 July 2015, that Mr Minhas was not aware of the duration of Mr Malik’s pain, and further, it was apparent from his witness statement. She stated if it was an allegation that Mr Malik intended to rely upon it was necessary to plead it in the Particulars of Claim which was not done.  Lady Justice Nicola Davies also acknowledged that in cross-examination Mr Minhas had accepted he did not have knowledge of duration of pain, and this was not challenged by the appellant.  The first time an allegation relating to the duration of pain had been raised was in re-examination of the claimant’s neurosurgical expert. The judge had ruled this was a new departure from the pleaded case and disallowed the question. Lady Justice Nicola Davies found this was appropriate and that the judge rightly allowed questions pertaining to duration when it related to the issue of alternative treatment.  Lady Justice Nicola Davies further found that it was reasonable for the judge to draw an inference that Mr Malik’s pain had not resolved by the date of surgery. She had regard to the fact Mr Malik had not mentioned it to the operating surgeon his pain had resolved and the evidence of the medical experts on the presence of compression.  Grounds 2 and 3  Lady Justice Nicola Davies briefly addressed the other grounds despite the fact they were contingent on ground 1.  The analysis of ground 2 does provide a useful reminder of the guidance at §87 of Montgomery.  Lady Justice Nicola Davies was satisfied that the judge’s findings in respect of the alternative treatment reflected the expert evidence.  She set out that it was for the doctor to assess the reasonable alternatives as per Bolam and for the Court to judge the materiality of the risk inherent in any proposed treatment, applying the test whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk (Montgomery).  She found the judge was therefore correct in applying the Bolam test before then considering whether Mr Malik had been made aware of the material risks involved in the recommended treatment and reasonable alternatives.  Finally, in respect of ground 3, she noted there was no challenge to the judge’s finding that Mr Malik wanted surgery quickly to relieve his pain. She acknowledged there was no evidential basis to support the appellants’ argument relating to causation.  Comment  It is not known whether, had it been pleaded Mr Minhas failed to ascertain the duration of Mr Malik’s intercostalgic pain, that Mr Malik would have succeeded on that point. However, it is evident that failing to plead the same is an instant barrier to any possibility of success.  The simple takeaway point from this case is to explore all aspects with the experts at an early stage and ensure issues are properly pleaded from the outset. Or if in the event it arises at a later stage, an application to amend is made as soon as possible. The case provides a clear reminder that the courts are unwilling to entertain new issues being advanced for the first time at trial.

Parklane Plowden will be taking part in the Leeds Legal Walk

The Leeds Legal Walk returns next week, Wednesday 21 June. Members and staff from Parklane Plowden will be taking part to raise money for Access to Justice in the Leeds area.  Teams taking part on the day, will be competing for the Vice-Chancellor’s Challenge Cup, this will be awarded to the team which has raised the highest amount of donations for the walk.  The walk starts at 5.30 pm outside the Leeds Combined Courts Centre then takes walkers through the city centre, down to the Royal Armouries, along the banks of the Leeds Liverpool Canal, up to Woodhouse Moor and then finish at the Rose Bowl, Leeds Beckett University.  Any donations, likes and shares would be greatly appreciated. You can donate <a href="https://atjf.enthuse.com/pf/parklane-plowden-f349d">here</a>.

Parklane Plowden expand Family Team with KC

Parklane Plowden’s Family Team are delighted to welcome Julia Cheetham KC as a door tenant.  Called in 1990 and Silk since 2015, Julia brings with her an exceptional reputation, dealing with highly complex matters involving children and vulnerable adults.  Julia specialises in:  <ul> <li>Family</li>  <li>Child care</li>  <li>Court of Protection</li>  <li>Community Care Law</li>  <li>Medical</li>  <li>Human Rights</li>  <li>International and Overseas Territories Law</li> </ul>  Julia’s particular area of specialism is in complex cases where one parent has killed another or where a child has been unlawfully killed. Julia has represented parents, children, and local authorities in such cases many of which have involved high-profile criminal cases and/or serious case reviews.  “Julia is a fantastic addition to Parklane Plowden’s already unrivalled childcare expertise on Circuit, her experience will only enhance the team’s strength in this area.” Mark Williams, Senior Practice Director.  For further information on the group’s services and expertise, please contact <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/clerks/mark-williams/">Mark Williams</a>, Senior Practice Director to the Family Team on 0113 228 5043.

22 June 2023 | Employment Law with Lunch

The next webinar in our ‘Law with Lunch’ series of bitesize, lunchtime talks covering legal issues of the moment is not to be missed.  Thursday 22 June 2023 | 12:30-13:30  Join barrister and employment specialist Stuart Roberts as he discusses:  Anatomy of a trial - taking you through a 7 day trial in the Tribunal: the issues, challenges and tactics for a complex trial, spanning claims of race and sex discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal: from initial instruction, through the trial to the remedy hearing.  Please email events@parklaneplowden.co.uk to register.

New Rules for Standard Family Orders – Public Law

On the 17th May 2023 Mr Justice Peel announced a number of changes to the Standard Family Orders, along with guidance as to how such orders should be drafted. This article sets out the main changes with an emphasis on their relevance for Public Family Law practitioners.  The new pro forma Standard Family Orders can be found here:  <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-1-150523.zip">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-1-150523.zip</a>  <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-2-150523.zip">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-2-150523.zip</a>  The key changes are:  <ul> <li>The orders give a greater steer for the commissioning of SJE experts rather than sole experts, and for their reports to be considered by the court without personal attendance at the hearing.</li>  <li>The orders accommodate directions relevant to remote hearings and the guidance on electronic bundles.</li>  <li>The orders include a Permission to Appeal directions order.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the changes to law and practice brought by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the new required forms for cases involving committal applications.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate an updated Deprivation of Liberty order, an updated standalone Port Alert order and the correct contact details for any disclosure request to NHS England.</li>  <li>The children orders reduce significantly the use of recitals. In general, recitals now appear at the end of children orders, giving greater prominence to the body and substance of the orders.</li>  <li>In the children orders, there are separate orders for different stages of public law and private law proceedings, all of which have been made more streamlined.</li> </ul>  House Rules  Mr Justice Peel sets out the ‘House Rules’ for the drafting of Family Orders, the main points of these are summarised below.  Recitals  <ul> <li>Recitals in a children order shall appear in a schedule at the end of the order.</li>  <li>Recitals must only record necessary information, drafted in a short and neutral manner.</li>  <li>Recitals should not:<ul><li>record what happened in the hearing</li></ul><ul><li>record the parties’ position</li></ul><ul><li>recite the documents which the court read (unless it was a without notice hearing)</li></ul> <ul> <li>recite the witnesses who were heard (unless it was a without notice hearing)</li> </ul> </li> </ul>  Disclosure Orders  <ul> <li>Disclosure orders against third parties should each be drawn as a separate order</li>  <li>The main order should include, in the body of the order, what disclosure orders have been made and the date by which the disclosure should be made.</li> </ul>  Format of order  <ul> <li>The body of orders should always be prepared in Times New Roman font, 12 point, with single spacing.</li>  <li>Orders should be consecutively numbered from 1 irrespective of whether the paragraph in question concerns a definition, recital, agreement, undertaking or order. The schedule of recitals shall recommence as paragraph 1.</li>  <li>The next hearing should appear at the start of the Order, with the following orders and directions in chronological order.</li>  <li>Parties:<ul><li>The parties shall be specified at the beginning of the order.</li></ul><ul><li>Children shall be referred to by their first forename and surname.</li></ul><ul><li>Each child shall be numbered as a separate respondent.</li></ul><ul><li>The children’s guardian shall be referred to as “the guardian”.</li></ul><ul><li>If a party acts by a litigation friend, or a child by a children’s guardian, this must be stated.</li></ul><ul><li>Advocates should be identified on the face of the order as Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms etc. [surname] or by their first name and surname, with counsel being identified as such.</li></ul><ul><li>Contact details should be included for litigants in person and the solicitor of represented parties. Counsel’s details should not be included.</li></ul><ul><li>Language</li></ul><ul><li>Clear English should be used at all times, avoiding archaic legal language.</li></ul><ul><li>Definitions appear in the recitals. Abbreviations may be used.</li></ul><ul><li>In the body of the order, parties should be referred to by their status (e.g. “applicant” and “respondent”) rather than by their role in the proceedings (e.g. the mother, the father etc.).</li></ul><ul><li>“Their” should be used in a singular sense instead of “his or hers”.</li></ul><ul><li>Where a direction or order is for a party to do something, it must be directed to the party and not to their solicitor.</li></ul><ul><li>Dates must be specified using the full name of the month and year, for example 17 May 2013</li></ul> <ul> <li>Times must be stated using the 24-hour format for example - 17:00 or 12:00</li> </ul> </li> </ul>

Drafting Family Orders – the New ‘House Rules’ and Standard Family Orders – May 2023 | Part 2 – Financial Provision and Divorce Orders

The revision to Standard Family Orders (SFO) released on 17 May 2023 are said to: “Reflect changes in law, practice, and procedure. In part, they have been amended to achieve internal consistency and clarity of phraseology. Formatting and stylistic improvements have also been made.” (Advisory Notice by Mr Justice Peel, Judge in Charge of the Standard Orders).  In Part 1, Katherine Goss set out the May 2023 key changes to Private Children orders : <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/new-house-rules-and-standard-family-orders-may-2023/">https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/new-house-rules-and-standard-family-orders-may-2023/</a>  This second advisory note therefore concentrates on the May 2023 key changes to the Financial Provision and Divorce orders as a result of the May 2023 revision and also sets out in summary the new “House Rules” on how to draft orders.  As before, the SFOs do not have the status of “forms” under FPR Part 5. The default position is that they should be used, but parties and the court are permitted to adapt them to such extent as may be appropriate.  <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/advisory-notice-by-mr-justice-peel-judge-in-charge-of-the-standard-orders/">Advisory Notice by Mr Justice Peel, Judge in Charge of the Standard Orders - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary</a>.  Click on the above link to access:  <ul> <li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HouseRules.May2023.docx">Download HouseRules.May2023.docxfile</a></li>  <li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-1-150523.zip">Download SFO-Vol-1-150523.zipfile</a></li>  <li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-2-150523.zip">Download SFO-Vol-2-150523.zipfile</a></li> </ul>  The Family Orders May 2023 ‘House Rules’ are then in summary :  1) All orders made by the Family Court and the High Court (Family Division) are to be in the standard forms as contained in Vol 1 and 2 so when drafting orders, whether by consent or following a hearing you should use the standard order templates adapted as appropriate to the facts of the case.  2) Recitals -in a financial order these should appear at the beginning of the order BUT in a children order they are to be at the end of the order. Recitals must only record necessary information, drafted in as short and neutral a manner as possible. They should not record what happened in the hearing and should be limited to essential background matters which are not part of the body of the order. Any purported views of the court which did not form part of the court’s decision should not be recited. The recording of a party’s position before, during, or after the hearing as a recital should cease unless the standard order template requires such information.  3) Do Not - recite the documents read, or witnesses heard, save without notice hearings, in which case the details shall be recorded in a recital as shall the reason for the hearing being made without notice    4) Third party disclosure orders/non-party orders need to be done as separate orders  not contained in the main order from the proceedings, but the main order should record that separate order(s) have been made and  should identify what the separate order was for and the date by which any information / evidence arising from that order is to be disclosed.  5) Format of order:  a. The body of orders should always be prepared in Times New Roman font, 12 point, with single spacing.  b. An order shall be consecutively numbered from 1 irrespective of whether the paragraph in question concerns a definition, recital, agreement, undertaking or order. Where possible, and in any event as provided in the standard order templates, recitals in children cases should appear in a schedule to the order. The numbering of paragraphs in any schedule shall recommence as paragraph 1.  c. Subparagraphs, to two levels only, are permitted and shall be numbered (a), (b) etc, then (i), (ii) etc (with or without brackets).  d. So far as possible, the order should contain orders and directions in a chronological order, save that the directions in respect of the next hearings should appear at the start of the order.  e. An order shall state in its heading the statute(s), or European Regulation(s), or Protocol under which the powers in question are exercised. It shall not state that the inherent powers of the court are being exercised.  6) Parties:  a. The parties shall be specified at the beginning of the order.  b. Use the “applicant” and the “respondent” not in the main suit (i.e. petitioner and respondent) save in respect of orders made in the main suit.  c. Children shall be referred to by their first forename and surname.  d. Each child shall be numbered as a separate respondent.  e. The children’s guardian shall be referred to as “the guardian.”  f. If a party acts by a litigation friend, or a child by a children’s guardian, this must be stated in the paragraph of the order detailing the parties to the proceedings.  7) Where a party was represented by an advocate, that advocate shall be named on the face of the order. Formality of naming should be preserved, with the advocate being identified as “Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms etc. [surname]” or by their first name and surname. If the advocate is counsel, the order should so state.  8) Where a standard order template requires contact details to be inserted into the paragraph detailing the parties to the proceedings, those contact details shall be of the party if a litigant in person, or of the solicitors on the court record if the party is represented. Contact details for counsel should not be used.  9) Clear English (or Welsh in Wales) should be used at all times. Archaic legal language (“the party of the first part,” “hereinabove,” “heretofore” etc.) should be avoided.  10) If definitions are required, they shall appear in the recitals. Abbreviations may be used.  11) In the body of the order, parties should be referred to by their status (e.g. “applicant” and “respondent”) rather than by their role in the proceedings (e.g. the mother, the father etc.)  12) Although not grammatically pure the plural pronoun “their” should be used in a singular sense instead of “his or hers.”  13) An obligation to do an act as provided for in an order shall be taken to include causing the act to take place. Thus the phrase “or cause to be paid,” does not need to be included in an order.  14) An obligation to do an act within a specified period shall state the actual date and time by which the act must be done.  15) Where a direction or order is for a party to do something, it must be directed to the party and not to their solicitor.  16) Dates shall be specified and must use the full name of the month and the year in full form (e.g. 17 May 2013 and not 17th May 2013 or 17/5/13 or May 17th, 2013 or “this 17th day of May 2013”). Times must be stated using the 24-hour format (e.g. 17:00 or 12:00, not 5pm or noon.)  17) Distances should be specified metrically up to 1,000 metres. Beyond that distance either system, imperial or metric, may be used.  18) Monetary sums shall be denoted numerically, save that for sums expressed in millions the abbreviation “m” may be used. Other variants e.g. “M” or “millions” should not be used. Currencies shall be expressed by the usual symbols. Thus, for example, £, €, US$ and A$ should be used, not GBP, EUR, USD, and AUD.  Changes to the Standard Family Orders (Financial Provision)  Key Practical issues and the need for change:  <ul> <li>The SFO ‘long directions order’ was (in the 2020 incarnation) at 46 pages extremely long and needed wholesale revision.</li>  <li>Across the board the orders needed to accommodate directions for remote hearings and electronic bundles and to update the forms in the light of the Efficient Conduct Statement.</li>  <li>Given that the Divorce Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 is now in force the terminology used in divorce, dissolution, nullity, and separation proceedings needed updating  </li> </ul>  Specific changes  <ul> <li>The ‘long’ directions order is now down to 32 pages from 46 pages .</li>  <li>The orders accommodate directions relevant to remote hearings and the guidance on electronic bundles (paragraph 76 Order 7.0 Vol 2)</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including prohibition against cross examination provisions, and the appointment of a Qualified Legal Representative (Vol 2 Orders 24.1-24.7)</li>  <li>The orders contain directions supporting the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy proceedings in the Financial Remedies Court Below High Court Judge level.</li>  <li>The Financial Directions Orders  (Order 1.1 and 1.2) orders give a greater steer for the commissioning of SJE experts rather than sole experts, and for their reports to be considered by the court without personal attendance at the hearing. This extends to there being in the Order 1.1 Long version specific reference t<a>hat the court is highly likely in the first instance to make an order for a single joint expert report and that it is only as a result of a Daniels v Walker application, or for some other reason, that the court permits one or both parties to obtain their own expert report</a>.</li> </ul>  <ul> <li>The financial orders include additional undertakings such as (i) not applying for decree absolute/final decree until 28 days after the making of a financial order (relevant for the making of a pension sharing order); (ii) removal of Land Registry notices; and (iii) obtaining a Get.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the provisions of the Divorce and Dissolution Act 2020, incorporating the new terminology for divorces – conditional order and final order in place of decree nisi and decree absolute – although retaining both options for the time being while this change takes effect.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including prohibition against cross examination provisions, and the appointment of a Qualified Legal Representative.</li>  <li>The financial orders include draft costs orders updated to reflect changes in practice and guidance on costs.</li>  <li>The financial orders include draft directions and substantive orders on pensions updated to reflect changes in practice and guidance in this area.</li>  <li>The financial orders include a free-standing draft order to accommodate the Accelerated First Appointment procedure.</li>  <li>The orders include a Permission to Appeal directions order.</li>  <li>Warning notices have been updated and made consistent.</li> </ul>  Conclusion  It would serve all practitioners well to always have the ‘House Rules’ in mind to ensure that Orders do not require amendment by the court and to update personal templates with the new SFO’s.  <div class="wp-block-group"> Julia Nelson is the head of the family law team at Parklane Plowden Chambers. Julia's practice specialises in Financial Provision and Private Children Law. </div>

New House Rules and Standard Family Orders – May 2023

<a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/advisory-notice-by-mr-justice-peel-judge-in-charge-of-the-standard-orders/">Advisory Notice by Mr Justice Peel, Judge in Charge of the Standard Orders - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary</a>.  Click on the above link to access:  <ul> <li>House Rules (May 2023)18.69 kb</li>  <li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-1-150523.zip">Download SFO-Vol-1-150523.zipfile</a>SFO Volume 1 (zip file)2.54 mb</li>  <li><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SFO-Vol-2-150523.zip">Download SFO-Vol-2-150523.zipfile</a>SFO Volume 2 (zip file)4.64 mb</li> </ul>  The revision to Standard Family Orders released on 17 May 2023 are said to: “Reflect changes in law, practice and procedure. In part, they have been amended to achieve internal consistency and clarity of phraseology. Formatting and stylistic improvements have also been made.” (Advisory Notice by Mr Justice Peel, Judge in Charge of the Standard Orders).  The advisory note sets out the key changes to Private Children orders:  Practical issues:  <ul> <li>The orders accommodate directions relevant to remote hearings and the guidance on electronic bundles (paragraph 76 Order 7.0 Vol 2)</li>  <li>The orders incorporate the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including prohibition against cross examination provisions, and the appointment of a Qualified Legal Representative (Vol 2 Orders 24.1-24.7)</li> </ul>  Specific changes:  <ul> <li>The children orders reduce significantly the use of recitals. In general, recitals now appear at the end of children orders, giving greater prominence to the body and substance of the orders (paragraphs 3 and 4 of House Rules)</li>  <li>The orders refer to “Planning Together for Children Course” instead of the “Separated Parents Information Programme” (paragraph 18 (b) Order 7.0 Vol 2)</li>  <li>There is a third-party disclosure order covering disclosure requests from school/nursery; the Local Authority; GP, hospital, Health Visitor etc. and the orders refer to the correct contact details for any disclosure request to NHS England (Order 7.2 Vol 2).</li>  <li>Warning notices have been updated and made consistent across the orders.</li>  <li>The precedents themselves are much more detailed, for example, there are detailed provisions in respect of handovers under the “directions and conditions” (paragraph 51 Order 7.0 Vol 2).</li> </ul>  General provisions:  <ul> <li>The orders incorporate the changes to law and practice brought by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.</li>  <li>The orders incorporate bespoke headings for the Family Court and the Family Division.</li>  <li>In the children orders, there are separate orders for different stages of public law and private law proceedings, all of which have been made more streamlined.</li> </ul>  Stylistic changes:  <ul> <li>No more little ‘th’ after the date; avoid archaic language; refer to the parties as applicant and respondent, rather than mother/father etc. (House Rules).</li> </ul>  Recitals  Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the House Rules state:  <ul> <li>Recitals in a children order shall appear at the end of the order.</li>  <li>Recitals must only record necessary information, drafted in as short and neutral a manner as possible.</li>  <li>They should not record what happened in the hearing and should be limited to essential background matters which are not part of the body of the order.</li>  <li>Any purported views of the court which did not form part of the court’s decision should not be recited.</li>  <li>The recording of a party’s position before, during, or after the hearing as a recital should cease unless the standard order template requires such information.</li>  <li>The order shall not recite the documents which the court read, or the witnesses who were heard, save in a case where an order is made without notice, in which case the details shall be recorded in a recital.</li> </ul>  Recitals must now appear at the end of the order in a schedule. In the precedents, paragraph one of the schedule lists examples of what qualifies as a “strictly necessary recital”:  <ul> <li>the agreed basis of an order</li>  <li>a concession</li>  <li>an issue resolved</li>  <li>an agreement</li>  <li>mechanical information, such as how an expert will be paid, by whom and what issues the expert should look at</li> </ul>  Is this the death of the recital?  The status of the recital in private law children cases appears to have been elevated in recent years and often more time and effort is spent trying to agree the wording of the recitals than on the substantive order.  It causes delay, increases costs and puts additional pressure on the judiciary to resolve disagreements between the parties about the wording.  This unhelpful trend has been a thorn in the President’s side for some time, yet the President’s Memorandum on drafting orders from November 2021 seems to have been seldom adhered to by many practitioners:  <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PFD-memo-on-orders-10112021.pdf">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PFD-memo-on-orders-10112021.pdf</a>  “In my speech to the FLBA on 16 October 2021 I stated: “The task of drafting an order has become a prolonged process. Partly because of remote working, the process of negotiating the order extends for days, with input from instructing solicitors and lay parties. These drafts are embellished to a Byzantine degree.”  I had previously referred to the problems that had arisen in the agreeing and drafting of orders in my Guidance: Forms of Orders in Children Cases (17 June 2019). There I observed that: “Many judges and practitioners are not using electronic templates or programs and are, instead, preparing lengthy narrative orders in each case by a more laborious method with the result that the preparation of orders is now taking more time rather than less.”  2. In that Guidance I proposed that the first order made in any children’s case should contain the key information but that subsequent orders should be in short form omitting lengthy narrative material and containing recitals stating only who attended and their representation; the issues determined at the hearing; any agreement or concession made during the hearing; and the issues that remain outstanding. I hoped that this would mitigate the problems.  3. In the field of public law a comparable problem has been addressed by the issue of amended orders 18 April 2021 1 which should have had the effect of substantially shortening orders made in that sphere with the result that time will have been saved and contention reduced.   4. Yet, it is clear that the problem has persisted in the field of private law, both in relation to litigation about children, and about money, and that the preparation of orders has become a highly adversarial and confrontational process leading to much unnecessary verbiage and great delay in the production of agreed drafts.  5. I have been asked to consider issuing a Practice Direction regulating professional standards in this area.  6. I do not consider that the Family Court needs such a Practice Direction, at least not at the present time. However, the Family Procedure Rule Committee will have to consider introducing such a measure if the principles in this memorandum are not observed and the non-compliance with elementary principles continues.”  For further guidance on what to include in the new schedule of recitals at the end of a draft private law order, the November 2021 Memo remains a useful starting point (key points highlighted):  9. The first and most basic rule is that where the order follows a hearing its terms (including its recitals) must reflect the result of the hearing, no more, no less.  10. The purpose of a recital is not to summarise what happened at a hearing, but rather to record those essential background matters which are not part of the body of the order.  11. In my Guidance of 17 June 2019 I said that in an ideal world the aim was to encapsulate all of the essential information about a children’s case in the most recent court order so that anyone taking up a case would only need to turn to the latest order to understand the issues, the parties, the state of the proceedings and other key information.  12. However, that process has led to delay, expense and confrontation, which has continued notwithstanding the use of short form orders. Therefore, while it remains necessary in children’s cases, both domestic and those with an international element, to record the essential background matters, it is essential that this is done as shortly and as neutrally as possible and that the parties should not seek to introduce adversarial and partisan statements in their favour in the recitals to the order. This is the first area of potential conflict.  13. It is not necessary in a financial remedy order to record any background matters, although the court in its discretion may permit the parties to do so. In this event it is, again, essential that this is done as shortly and as neutrally as possible.  14. The second area of potential conflict is the practice of parties seeking to attribute views to the court which did not form part of the court’s decision. This is a surprisingly prevalent practice and gives rise to much controversy. It is a practice that must cease.  15. The third area of potential conflict is the practice of a party’s representative seeking to record that party’s position before, or during, the course of, the hearing. Again, this can give rise to much conflict, but is wholly superfluous. This, too, must cease.  16. More latitude is permissible as regards consent orders but, again, restraint in relation to the content of recitals must be exercised given the cost to the parties and the time of the court that is spent approving them.  The recital therefore remains, however, the practice of it being weaponised should now be over.

Latest News

Event

21 August 2025

9th September 2025 | Employment Law with Lunch

Read time: < 1 m

Podcasts

21 August 2025

Parklane Plowden Podcast – A closer look at burial disputes

Read time: < 1 m

Legal Update

12 August 2025

Trial Success for Howard Elgot and Megan Crowther: HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Read time: 2 m

Event

6 August 2025

2nd October 2025 | Expert Evidence in Focus – In Collaboration with Sarah Vella, Evidence Matters

Read time: < 1 m

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Newcastle barristers Parklane Plowden relocate to city centre to further enable growth plans

REPLAY: Anatomy of a trial, 22 June 2023

Parklane Plowden Chambers Dedicated Service Lines

Fail to plead, fail to succeed

Parklane Plowden will be taking part in the Leeds Legal Walk

Parklane Plowden expand Family Team with KC

22 June 2023 | Employment Law with Lunch

New Rules for Standard Family Orders – Public Law

Drafting Family Orders – the New ‘House Rules’ and Standard Family Orders – May 2023 | Part 2 – Financial Provision and Divorce Orders

New House Rules and Standard Family Orders – May 2023

Latest News

9th September 2025 | Employment Law with Lunch

Parklane Plowden Podcast – A closer look at burial disputes

Trial Success for Howard Elgot and Megan Crowther: HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

2nd October 2025 | Expert Evidence in Focus – In Collaboration with Sarah Vella, Evidence Matters