In the world of family law, procedural rules are more than administrative hurdles—they are the backbone of a fair and efficient judicial process. In the recent case of T v T & Ors [2025] EWFC 14 (B), the disregard for these rules reached such a level that the final hearing had to be adjourned entirely. This judgment provides a stark reminder of the perils for parties and their legal representatives when procedural rules are ignored.

The Case That Couldn’t Proceed

The case concerned financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a marriage. Initially involving the husband and wife as the main parties, three additional respondents (the husband’s mother, sister, and the executor of his late father’s estate) were later joined due to the wife’s claims over family-owned properties. The case had already spanned nearly two years and included seven directions hearings.

However, when the matter came before the court for a three-day final hearing, it was quickly apparent that the case was not ready to proceed due to a series of procedural failings:

1. Excessive Bundles: The applicant’s legal team submitted over 2,700 pages of documents, despite clear rules limiting bundles to 350 pages unless permission is granted.
2. Missing Essential Documents: The bundles lacked a case summary, chronology, and statement of issues, making it impossible for the judge to prepare adequately.
3. Late Filing: Key documents, including counsel’s position statement, were submitted the night before or on the morning of the hearing, giving the litigants in person no time to respond.
4. No Open Proposals: The wife’s legal team failed to provide open proposals, a critical requirement in financial remedy cases.
5. Legal Case Unclear: The wife’s claims over family properties lacked clarity, leaving the court uncertain about the legal basis of her arguments.

Key Lessons for Practitioners

This case offers valuable insights for family lawyers:

1. Bundles Must Follow the Rules
   • FPR PD 27A limits bundles to 350 pages without prior permission. Here, the applicant’s 2,747-page bundle was a clear breach of this rule. Lawyers must ensure bundles are concise, relevant, and submitted on time.
   • The court cannot and will not sift through excessive paperwork to salvage a poorly prepared case.
2. Timely Filing Is Critical
   • Position statements must be filed by 11 am the day before the hearing. For cases involving litigants in person, best practice suggests serving them at least three days in advance (as highlighted in Re B (Litigants in Person: Timely Service of Documents) [2016] EWHC 2365 (Fam)). Late filings risk procedural unfairness and, as seen here, can derail hearings entirely.
3. Clarify Legal Arguments
   • The wife’s legal arguments, based on constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, were poorly articulated. The court emphasised the need for clear and concise statements of case, as required by the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings.
   • Practitioners must clearly identify the legal framework supporting their client’s claims and provide sufficient evidence to back them up.
4. Don’t Assume the Court Will Fix It
   • Judges may work to untangle poorly prepared cases, but as this judgment shows, there are limits. Recorder Chandler KC noted that this case was so chaotic that proceeding would have been unfair. Lawyers must respect the court’s time and resources by preparing cases to a high standard.
5. The Risk of Costs Sanctions
   • Although no costs order was made due to the parties’ circumstances, the judge indicated that, in other cases, such breaches could result in indemnity costs orders against the offending party or their representatives.

The Bigger Picture: Procedural Discipline in Family Law

This case is not just about one chaotic hearing—it reflects a broader issue in family law practice. As Sir James Munby P observed in Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177, a “slapdash, lackadaisical” approach to court orders and procedures cannot be tolerated. Similarly, Mostyn J in Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 decried the “utter disregard” for procedural rules that too often characterises family law cases.

The consequences are significant:

• For parties, procedural failures delay justice, increase costs, and add emotional strain.
• For courts, such failings waste valuable judicial time and resources, compounding delays across an already overstretched system.

Final Thoughts: A Warning for the Future

The decision in T v T & Ors is a wake-up call for family law practitioners. Procedural rules are not optional, and failing to follow them can have dire consequences, including adjourned hearings, wasted costs, and damage to professional reputations.

For lawyers, the lesson is clear: attention to detail, compliance with rules, and respect for the court’s time are non-negotiable. For clients, it’s a reminder to choose legal representatives who will handle their case with the care and professionalism it deserves.

Share on Facebook

Post on X