The requester sought quarterly agendas and minutes for Civil and Family Court User Groups from 2019 to date, but the General Registry withheld all information citing exemptions.
Key Facts
The request covered Civil and Family Court User Groups from 2019 to the present.
The authority held 46 documents totaling 160 pages but released none.
The outcome was determined as 'No information sent - all held but exempt'.
Sample content included a Family Court agenda from October 2020 and a Civil Court extraordinary meeting from May 2020 regarding COVID-19 procedures.
The Civil Court meeting discussed remote hearings, electronic filing, and the progression of summary procedure matters during the pandemic.
Data Disclosed
2019
2020
2022
21st October 2020
2.30 P.M.
11th July 2018
1st May 2020
11:00am
160 pages
46 documents
Original Request
Further to a search of answers to FOI questions on "court users group" with 0 search results and the lack of a government response to the public consultation in 2022 to finalise the code of practice proactive publication that would have required the information to be proactively published, please supply copies of agendas, agenda item documents and minutes with action points of what appear to be quarterly meetings from 2019 to date with indication of cancelled meetings in lockdowns etc in relation to (1) the civil court users group and (2) the family court users group.
Data Tables (86)
4. Litigants in person – guidance for
Action
raised the issue of whether there should be guidance issued for Litigants
in Person (LiP) in terms of how they should behave both in court and in
dealing with the advocate on the other side.
commented that Resolution provides guidance on how practitioners
should treat LiP but nothing for the other way around. In some cases the
police had been involved and even an ASBO issued for a particularly difficult
LiP who consistently used bad behaviour/abuse etc. towards practitioners.
commented that since lockdown there seemed to be more disputes and
more LiP and there is heightened tetchiness as people are more anxious.
said that often the advocate is seen as an extension of their client by
the LiP (on opposite side) so they are subjected to animosity from the LiP.
further commented that LiP needed guidance on reasonable response
times as the LIP is just working on their own case and often had unrealistic
expectations regarding receiving instant responses from busy practitioners
with multiple cases.
DN asked the profession to consider the current guidance that exists on the
court website and consider drafting additional guidance for LiP regarding
expectations as to acceptable behaviour. from the Law Society agreed
to look into this. DN stated there could be a more obvious link on the court
website to point LIP’s to any new guidance notes as well as to existing
guidance.
DN stated that if new guidance notes were issued the court could request
that LIP’s communicated to the Court that they had read the guidance.
to arrange for
draft guidance
notes.
DN to await
suggested new
guidance note
and then
consider
publishing new
leaflets
5. Change of schools – Parents’ consent
Action
reported that the Department of Education/School is accepting
instruction from just one parent when that parent has made a unilateral
decision to move a child’s school in circumstances when both parents have
parental responsibility. Schools seemingly did not have a clear policy on
the acceptance of instruction from only one parent. In the case that
cited the school had referred her to at the Attorney
General’s office. There was consideration as to seeking a Prohibited Steps
Order but the child in question was already registered and settled in the
new school.
stated she had similar experience with flu vaccination agreements where
the authorities seemed to favour the resident parent even if both sides
have PR in that they will only take instruction from the resident parent.
DN stated he would write to the AG to indicate that parents are using PR
DN to write to
6. Court Welfare Service
Action
The difficulty encountered due to the unfortunate absence
was discussed. The concern was that
the Service and its vital work for the court was vulnerable to staff shortage
and a number of cases had been delayed due to this problem. DC indicated
that she had committed to full time working until the end of the month and
currently was doing all the CWO work. DN had written to the Probation
Service expressing the court’s concern over the difficulty. He commented
that the Court Welfare Service is a scarce resource and the system is under
extreme pressure.
commented that the use of private alternatives is not always possible as
there are funding issues.
DN indicated he would wait until the end of the month to see if the
situation resolved itself.
Await
developments
7. Contact Centre Availability
Action
gave an update as to the out of hours contact centre. The provision of
the facility operated by the Children’s Centre was subject to a contracting
process but the process of drawing up contracts had apparently stalled. All
contact offered through that facility would be “supported” rather than fully
supervised. The proposal for this service had been sent to the Attorney
General’s office in February 2019 which is where it had remained. As at
October 2020 nothing has been signed off or agreed with the AG.
commented that whilst the facility had not been available the
expectations of parties had lessened and parties had found other ways to
facilitate contact. agreed that there appeared to be a change of mind-
set in the profession due to the lack of provision. However there would still
be cases which would make use of the facility so DN indicated he would
make inquiries.
DN to write to
the AG clarifying
where the
contract drafting
process had
reached
8. Legislative changes
Action
Diversion of Offenders and Domestic Abuse Bill
This has been going through Tynwald since March 2019.
will email for
an update
9. Mediation
Action
reported that are having 6 months
away from offering a mediation service.
10. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
reported that there is no conventional training being offered at the
moment due to lockdown. Zoom training is the only type available at
present.
It was suggested that new advocates need to be trained in Resolution
principles.
reported that there is excellent training available over Zoom on The
Family Law Hub (Class Legal) and suggested that perhaps the Isle of Man
Law Society could fund this.
DC requested to be included in any training offered as it would be of great
benefit to her.
commented that training is needed to assist young practitioners in the
to look into
this
11. Any other issues
Action
COVID-19
DN thanked the profession for how they managed their clients’
expectations during the lockdown. He was very impressed with all
practitioners’ ability to persuade their client’s to compromise where
possible.
commented that COVID showed how to deal with things quicker.
One issue discussed was the need for automatically giving the date of a
first directions appointment when applications were received. DN indicated
that he was open to considering alternatives, however where LiP were
involved a date would be needed. Reflection would also need to be given to
what the actual rules required.
DN to check the
rules regarding
first hearings
10. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 24th February 2021 at 2.30pm
• DN updated the group about an email received from
in relation to the out-of-hours supported contact service.
In summary the IOMCC was no further forward with an out of
hours service contract despite being in touch with the Dept. of
Home Affairs. However the Children’s Centre was still able to
offer supported contacts through their normal referral process
subject to having staff available (understood to be during
business hours and not at weekends).
• DN suggested that for any cases needing to be ‘supervised’
(i.e. supported contact) advocates could get in touch with the
Children’s Centre. commented that it seems this is a service
that was only provided during office hours Monday to Friday.
informed that she recently had a referral to the service and
found it to be very helpful, confirming this was provided on a
week day.
• DN opined that the issue of not having an out-of-hours service
should perhaps also be raised within the letter to the Minister.
All present agreed.
• commented that the lack of progress may have been due
to the departure of the previous manager of the CW Service.
• asked if it was worth copying the Children’s Champion in to
the letter. Members of the group were unsure who the current
Children’s Champion was and DN decided it best to leave that
secondary reference for now and primarily focus on the
approach to the Minister.
• informed that she had recently received an email stating
that the Children’s Centre was beginning a fresh intake of the
‘Through the eyes of a child’ course. DN commented that this
is good news – although unsure of what the intake is like.
• informed that was the contact she had
corresponded with at the Children’s Centre and who had been
very helpful.
DN to include chasing
the provision of out of
hours supported
contact in letter to the
Minister.
available to forward
on contact details.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Divorce Dissolution & Separation (Isle of Man) Act 2020
• DN advised the group that in an update within the General
Registry he had been advised that the method of rule drafting
was being worked upon and there was still a lot to do. DN was
informed that steps were being taken to progress matters.
• It was envisaged that at the appropriate time a draft set of
rules would be put to the Law Society and then possibly the
group would be asked for volunteers for a sub-committee, as
6. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
• DN remarked that there had not been much feedback from the
Law Society in recent meetings regarding family training. DN
asked the group if anyone knew who is currently acting in place
of the Chief Executive. It was suggested the task probably fell
to the President . DN suggested that it
would be appropriate to invite the President to attend the next
meeting of the group.
to invite President
of Law Society to
attend next meeting
7. Any other issues
Action
Victim Support
• brought up the matter of both Victim Support and the Police
noting there can sometimes be issues with only seeing one side
of the story and that person going forward as being ‘the victim’
when such may not be the case. asked the group if this was
an issue anyone else noticed. DN acknowledged the problem.
• commented that training would be helpful in relation to this
as she had a current case where her client is a victim but the
other side sees that they are too – highlighting that it can be
difficult to differentiate. DN commented that this difficulty was
a side effect of the progress in awareness of issues of domestic
violence and coercive control and the availability of Victim
Support which meant that each side may subjectively view
themselves as the victim.
• commented that in the difficult cases where there was no
obvious victim she was often guided by whether a potential
victim had insight and could vocalise their own shortcomings
rather than blaming everything on the other side. On the other
hand if the person does not accept responsibility such can
indicate that they could be the perpetrator. DN agreed that this
was a useful indicator but of course not definitive.
• remarked that it is very difficult to gauge especially in the
case of a very vulnerable client. When dealing with a client like
this, suggesting the use of Victim Support can feel like making
the client the victim.
• agreed that in some cases they end up seeing both sides as
once one person goes to Victim Support the other side also may
want to attend. DN added that there is no real answer in this
situation, and ultimately a fact finding hearing may be required.
• commented that people often see the involvement of
Victim Support as a flag to use in their favour, as Court Welfare
cannot distinguish either way assistance on this matter would
be helpful.
to look into
additional info available
to share
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
Court Bundles
• Both and present at meeting.
• raised the issue of not receiving Court Bundles in advance of
Court hearings, thus on occasion being left without a bundle during a
hearing.
• DN highlighted the importance of preparing Court bundles for CWO’s
in addition to the Court in advance of hearings.
Workload
• The busy workload of the CWO’s was mentioned, DN stated that
cases often required interim reports rather than one off involvement
of CWOs. mentioned that they continue to try to move things
forward with cases.
• raised her upcoming departure from the Court Welfare Service
towards the end of July. DN stated his thanks for staying with
the service while recruitment of a new officer occurred.
3. Contact Centre Contract
Action
• Children’s Centre stated they have not had any contact regarding the
Contact Centre Contract.
• DN highlighted that an out of hours/supportive contact centre should
be in place
• mentioned that there were employment issues involving
management of the Family Court Welfare Service and Probation
which may have delayed progress in this area.
• DN asked if there were any recent cases requiring this provision, it
was noted that most advocates/Litigants in Person had found their
own ways of dealing with issues. DN stated that this provision will
inevitably be needed at some stage therefore it is hoped that any
issues preventing it will resolve soon.
6. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
• It was noted that the Law Society has lots in the pipeline and issues
regarding training raised in previous meetings would hopefully be
addressed (e.g dealing with litigant’s in person, pension sharing).
• There will be Duty Advocate training in August 2021.
• DN reminded all of the webinars that mentioned at the
previous meeting.
• No other issues in relation to training were raised when mentioned
by DN.
to report back
to the Law Society
that training was
raised in the
meeting today
7. Any other issues
Action
Schools on Island allowing children to be moved to a new school without
the consent of both parents with parental responsibility
• raised the issue as recently there was a case with this scenario.
• DN explained that he previously wrote to the AG regarding this
issue and received a response outlining difficulties and pointing to
section 15(2) of the Education Act 2001 which restricted the ability
of the Dept/School to refuse to admit a pupil on quite limited
grounds. Such did not allow refusal where there was a dispute
between joint holders of parental responsibility. However, the AG
had confirmed that the Department’s guidance to parents would be
looked at to potentially include reference to the fact that where
there was shared parental responsibility for the child the new
admission should if possible be agreed with the other parent or
resolved by the court. DN suggested that how this issue is dealt
with depends on the school; some require one signature and others
require both parents’ signatures. It appeared unfortunate there
seemed little else that could be done to prevent unilateral change
and often the Court had to act after the event in order to re-instate
the status quo which was not ideal.
• DN stated that in terms of the medical side of things, the resident
parent seemed to have the control over situations such as vaccines
for the child. DN explained such issues would need to be resolved
by the Court if parents can’t decide between themselves.
• mentioned being involved in a school-change case recently
where this situation occurred but was unsure if it was a Court
Welfare issue or not, highlighting that CW involvement could vary
case by case. DN stated his view that as a change of school could
have a profound effect upon a child there would usually be a need
for input from Court Welfare.
Pension Sharing Reports
• mentioned that they joined a webinar (paid 3 hour) which
related to advocates getting sued for misadvising on such matters
which focused the mind for practitioners on the need to get
specialist expert help and the pool of experts was quite limited
• Currently it is taking around 25 weeks for such to produce reports.
DN commented that this was an important issue being raised due to
potential liability and asked if anyone knew of any other companies
which can produce these reports as this is necessary specialist
advice.
Litigants in Person
• mentioned the differing rules for Litigants in Person and
advocates, asking that the Court could provide more direction to LiP
of what is expected of an advocate to demonstrate how they too
should act. Highlighting that this is a real issue currently.
to bring up at
next Council
meeting
8. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 20th October 2021 at 2.30pm
Any issues for the Agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the Family
Court inbox.
2. Remote hearings and use of technology during lockdown
Action
opened the discussion by asking if anything useful could be gained from
the lessons learned from the UK in overcoming the problems of court
appearances created by lockdown. She stated that in the UK remote
working had been found to have advantages in relation to time saved by
not having to appear in person at court.
DN and DC had both presided over a number of remote hearings during
lockdown. However care needed to be applied as English case-law
underlined the importance, particularly with vulnerable clients, for the
advocate and client to be able to easily consult privately.
DN commented that there were also practical issues in that some parties
could not appear by remote link where for instance they had direct care of
the children or where the children could potentially overhear the
proceedings. In those cases parties had chosen to attend court and social
distancing measures were applied in courtrooms.
indicated the concern that for full hearings there could be problems
with parties become emboldened without the gravitas of the courtroom and
start behaving inappropriately. DN acknowledged the problem. DN
indicated he had conducted a full hearing with a Litigant in Person on
screen as they lived in England and this had seemingly worked well but all
would depend on the circumstances. DN referred to the Family Court
Guidance from England and Wales titled “The Road Ahead 2021” which in
turn referred to the second report of the Nuffield Family Justice
Observatory on Remote Hearings which inter alia highlighted that Litigants
in Person can feel left out of the process when hearings are conducted
remotely. DN also referred to the guidance which was aimed at ensuring
that the ease of remote working did not then increase practitioner’s
workloads. It was stressed that the hours of the court day in terms of
sittings should not extend through the use of the technology in light of the
All the practitioners agreed that the workload for the Court Welfare Officers
is a “big ask” for 2 people. also reminded the group that both CWO
work on a part time basis and do all their own administration.
DN commented that practitioners should do all they could to relieve the
pressure from CWO and divert matters where possible to mediation.
DN thanked on behalf of the group for all her hard work and
extended best wishes for the future.
4. Contact Centre Contract
Action
As indicated above and indicated that the contract for out of hours
supported contact at the Children’s Centre was in the final stages of
working out what can be offered. All referral must come through the
Family Court Welfare service and not direct from advocates.
There is funding available for 5 families at a time and the service will be
available to the person having contact initially for up to 12 weeks. It is
envisaged that contact should move out of the centre after 6 weeks.
Eventually the Contact Centre could be used as a drop-off and pick up point
for contact. DC queried what happens after 12 weeks if the family is not
ready to come off the books. It was confirmed there is a facility to offer
further weeks. The system has been designed with a view to families
coming off the books within 12-18 weeks to ensure as many families as
possible can benefit from the service offered.
queried whether the Court always needed to be involved for the service
to be accessed. commented that she assumed that was so as the
service was operated through the Department of Home Affairs. However it
was hoped that if the parties can agree then perhaps a direct referral via
the CWO could be made before the issuing of proceedings as such could
save officer time for the Court Welfare Service in the long run.
reported that it is hoped the service will be able to expand if additional
funding can be gained from other charities.
highlighted that there is still no provision within the centre for fully
supervised contact. Extreme cases have nowhere to go and this may be
connected with more GAL’s being appointed. DN commented that the lack
of provision was not ideal but perhaps the need for fully supervised contact
occurred relatively rarely such that it may be the reason for there being no
provision currently. DN suggested that in those rare cases where fully
supervised contact was needed the court may consider joining the
Department of Health and Social Care to perhaps fill the gap as part of its
provision to children with complex needs.
commented that she is happy the supported contact service will again
be available but expressed caution that practitioners do not slide back into
the old trend when the contact centre was almost used as a weapon from
one parent against the other insisting on ‘supervised’ contact and referrals
5. Legislative Changes
Action
Divorce Dissolution Act 2020
reported that she had been asked to set out a road map and looked at
the rules and went through the forms. The first thing that is needed is an
Initial Application form and then the Acknowledgment of Service form. She
has reported to the Chief Registrar and Stephen Robertson with a prototype
Initial Form and is waiting to hear back.
There was a query over who would be drafting of the rules as
It was thought the AG’s will be doing
the drafting but this is yet to be confirmed. The rules need to written
before the new regime can be brought into force.
had been hoping to attend a seminar in March to glean how
practitioners in England & Wales were approaching their own rules.
However, basing Manx rules on the equivalent English rules may be
problematic as BREXIT and COVID meant that such may be delayed. The
former Children’s Champion who had brought the legislation forward as a
private members bill was keen to see it implemented as soon as possible
and such wish was shared by the Group but it was acknowledged that the
secondary legislation was in the hands of the legislative drafters.
Domestic Abuse Act 2020
DN confirmed the legislation had been enacted in October 2020 but was
awaiting an appointed day order to be brought into force. DN commented
that this may not directly affect high court family practitioners save as a
matter for advice to clients regarding the further scope for applications to
summary courts regarding domestic violence/abuse in addition to the
existing powers in Part 5 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 and
6. Mediation
Action
indicated that to her knowledge is not currently taking
on any new mediation cases due to lack of facilities – he is moving house.
is taking on cases and can do so through Legal Aid.
has private clients on a regular basis.
and are both qualified but have had no referrals.
reported that she has been in contact with 2 mediators in the UK that
are supported by Legal Aid. One mediator deals with children and contact
matters and one deals with financial matters. These mediation sessions
take place via Zoom facilities and worked well. reported that she has
used one of the UK mediators recently (funded by Legal Aid). She was very
impressed with the service and would recommend as a resource. The
mediator was very experienced and provided a comprehensive report.
to circulate
mediators email
addresses (will
send to Court)
7. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
requested that the Court Welfare Officers be invited to any training
sessions that are relevant to their work.
It was agreed by the group that training was needed in the new Domestic
Abuse Bill.
As discussed earlier training has been hampered by the COVID pandemic.
All training that can be offered or completed at present is online via
Webinars – the group agreed that they would circulate amongst themselves
any recommended or upcoming webinars.
DC queried if there was a legal requirement for practitioners to complete a
certain amount of training / CPD each year and it was confirmed that
although not a legal requirement generally most family practitioners saw
attending training sessions as important and undertook such.
8. Any Other Issues
Action
raised the issue of the Initial Divorce Application form which was said to
ask when the parties had “last lived together as husband and wife”. This
has caused problems with same sex couples and as it is prescribed form
asked for it to be changed. DN suggested the wording be changed to “last
lived together as as spouses”.
Update – this
has previously
been changed by
Courts
Administration
to “married
couple”. DN has
approved this.
Practitioners are
asked to ensure
they check they
are using up to
date forms and
change their
templates
accordingly
10. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 23rd June at 2.30pm
• DN confirmed the position in respect of publicly funded
mediation as there was an error in the previous Points Arising
and confirmed that do take on
legal aid mediation cases.
• had provided an email update re the Court
Welfare Service shortly after the last meeting. DN commented
that the content was relatively historic now.
• No other issues to review were raised.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
• There was no attendance from the Family Court Welfare
Service (“FCW”).
• DN commented that he understood that things had worsened
somewhat since the last meeting before getting better. DN was
aware that thankfully arrangements were in place for private
service providers Horizons to take on writing Court Welfare
reports.
Staffing
• provided an update that Horizons have taken on the role of
writing Court Welfare reports as an interim measure but that
Horizons had not been given an end date as yet. They are
aware that there is a new CWO starting on 14th March and they
were expecting a handover period but there had been no
discussions on that as yet. A majority of the cases have been
allocated and there were issues to start with regarding meeting
submission dates, as Horizons had limited capacity, but they
were doing the best they could. There are 5 staff members in
Horizons dealing with reports.
• informed that the Law Society had received confirmation
from the Minister that an independent review of the FCW was to
be undertaken by which arose initially through
parents’ complaints but was to look at the wider issues.
invited any issues from family practitioners to be fed through
her to be passed on to the Minister. indicated it would be
beneficial to arrange a Teams meeting with Advocates.
• DN thanked for that offer and suggested that such
professional feedback would be very useful. DN confirmed that
a meeting is also being arranged between and
members of the Judiciary.
• highlighted issues that she has faced with FCW and the
non-attendance of any CWO at a directions list in December
2021. An email was sent to FCW and a satisfactory response
would provide a list
of contact details and
issues to .
was received. also commented that FCW was not a one
person job – and “more bodies” were needed.
• confirmed that section 11 CYPA’01 applications were
relatively few in the monthly summary court family list– but he
had experienced similar issues with no CWO attending the list.
• DN commented that it is useful to have a CWO in attendance
but if they were unable to attend he was content as long as the
court had dates for reports and dates to avoid if hearings
needed to be set. commented that it was also very helpful
on occasion to have a CWO present on the day to assist in
resolving issues such as interim contact.
• confirmed the new CWO was who had an extensive
background in CAFCAS. also expressed the view that the
Court Welfare position is at least a 2 person role and that
will be a great asset but would need help. DN agreed and
stated that it was an unrealistic expectation for one person to
do everything.
[JPW arrived later in the meeting]
• JPW expressed the preliminary view that FCW did not seem to
sit in the right place in Probation regarding that service’s core
functions and that FCW might be sited more appropriately
elsewhere for a better fit in terms of professional management
and support. JPW hoped that the review process will address
these issues and confirmed what previously said as to who
was carrying out the review.
3. Contact Centre Contract
Action
• There was no attendance from the Children’s Centre staff.
• advised that in her discussions with the Minister the
information from the Department was that they were in the
process of finalising the out of hours supported contact centre
contract with the Children’s Centre. However, the Minister
believed that more needed to be known about the size and
scope of what exactly was required of the out of hours service
before finalising. confirmed that she again was willing to act
as a conduit to the Department in this regard and suggested
that any of the family practitioners attending should provide
her with any details or ideas so that they could be fed back to
the Minister. DN commented that such line of communication
would be very useful.
• JPW later agreed with the position that had set out and
stated that she needed to know the issues in respect of the Out
of Hours service. There was a contract that had been drafted
but the questions remained within the Department as to what
the exact requirement was in terms of “supported” vs
“supervised” contact and the Minister indicated the Department
was hearing different things on that score. highlighted the
need in some rare case for a fully supervised contact service
reporting back to the Court. JPW said she needed to know
whether the profile of need was such that the service would
cater for service users prior to court proceedings or was this a
service wholly expected in respect of cases proceeding through
the Court. JPW was very keen for liaison with the group in this
respect. confirmed that Horizons do facilitate fully
supervised contact but at a cost which on occasion had been
met in part by various charities.
• JPW confirmed she needed to know the profile of need for the
service. What are the gaps? There is a contract but whether it is
the right contract is the question. JPW was very keen for
liaison in the group. In this regard DN asks practitioners to
feed-back about untapped need and the number of cases in
which supervised/supported contact was necessary and how the
service should look through .
• commented that the Law Society’s “People in Need” charity
is still available and they try to process applications as quickly
as possible.
Family Practitioners to
feedback through
their views to the
Minister on the
supported/supervised
contact provision.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Domestic Abuse Act
• SR gave an update and confirmed that the Department of
Home Affairs held an internal stakeholders’ workshop for the
purposes of initiating discussions and plans in advance of the
implementation of the Act. The desire would be for the Act to
be operable by the end of the year subject to a range of factors
not least the drafting of secondary legislation.
DN understood that the Summary Courts may be dealing with
most of the stand-alone applications. Any application where
there were ongoing proceedings in the High Court will be dealt
with by the High Court.
confirmed that she has reached out to criminal law
practitioners to see if any specific parts of the Act needed to be
brought in quickly and without fuss so that she could feed-back
to the Department. invited the same type of feedback from
the family practitioners. DN commented that this was again a
useful portal for communication and thanked for her help in
this regard.
b) Divorce Dissolution & Separation (Isle of Man) Act 2020
• DN confirmed that is responsible for drafting
the secondary legislation.
Family Practitioners to
feed back to
regarding any specific
parts of the Act that
needed enabling
quickly.
for training.
• advised that she has spoken with Louise Cooil about the
need for new LiP guidance. confirmed that she has arranged
a meeting with Louise Cooil to discuss the LiP guidance. DN
understands the difficulties as the existing LiP guidance is not
as thorough as it might be but he usually directed LiP’s to the
existing guidance at the first directions hearing. DN suggested
that there was lots of material on English court websites which
may be of use.
• confirmed that there is “Advice Now” a website that
provides a survival guide that she has directed LiP to use. It is
on English law but is helpful for LiP to get the general gist of
what is going on.
• has seen the LiP guidance on the website and will pick up
again with .
• DN raised the Jersey Law Conference covering child law on
25th March 2022. have attended one before but none
of the attendees had as yet booked on this course.
• confirmed that Liverpool Law Society organise regular
training events and conferences and their website referred to
lots of courses. It is cheaper to get there and courses are
excellent.
and to meet re
LiP’s guidance.
to circulate email
from with
details.
7. Suggested adoption of new Statement of Information as
provided in the model from England and Wales
Action
• had flagged up changes to the English Court Form D81
which may be of use in the Statement of Information Form
• DN comments there is more explanation on the E&W form and
perhaps it was more aimed towards completion by LiP. It is
longer than the form that we currently have. Usefully there is a
link to family court standard orders. [Message from Mr Justice
Mostyn: amendments to standard orders | Courts and Tribunals
Judiciary
• SB highlights maybe we just need more explanation on our
current Statement of Information
to
review and give brief
update at next meeting
8. C1 Forms – Amalgamating High Court and Summary Court
forms
Action
• confirms that Summary Courts are not getting many CYPA
application forms
• DN suggests there be one form for both Courts and if an
application went to Summary Courts and was not suitable for
that Court it could simply be passed to High Court rather than
full new application being made.
• raised the issue of 2 fees having to be paid. Everyone in
agreement as long as there was not a double fee.
• said that she only seems to put maintenance matters
through the Summary Courts and queries why there is a
separation between the Courts. suggested it would make
sense for the family courts to be amalgamated. DN commented
that such would require a change in primary legislation and his
suggestion was for easier ‘transfer’ between the two courts on a
practical basis rather than a wholesale change in the law. DN
suggested that the Law Society could look at whether to
recommend a more fundamental change in legislation to a
unified family court system.
• suggested that if any Practitioners think that any areas of
Law or Justice could be improved upon they can let her know
and she can feed that back to the Minister.
SR and to liaise to
look at changing C1
and C2 Forms
9. Any other issues
DN concluded the meeting, and thanked all for their attendance
10. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as *22nd June 2022 at 2.30pm.*
Any issues for the Agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– Callin Wild
(DHB B) Deputy High Bailiff Brooks
– Callin Wild
(AA) Alexander Armstrong – IOM Courts
– Callin Wild
(SR) Stephen Robertson – IOM Courts
– ASTU
– Family Team
– ASTU
– Family Team
– ASTU
– Family Team
– Corlett Bolton
– Family Court Welfare
– Corlett Bolton
– Victim Support
– KLSA
– Children’s Centre
– Hannan Law
– Victim Support
– Hannan Law
– Horizons
– Mann Benham
( – President IOM Law
Society
– Bridson Halsall
(JPW) Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for
Justice and Home Affairs
– Bridson Halsall
– Simcocks
– ASTU
– Pringle Law
– Gray Law
1. Review of points arising from the meeting on 22nd June 2022
Action
• DN asked what feedback she had received relating to
supported/supervised contact provision. had not received any
feedback and advised that if family practitioners can provide
feedback she can pass the views on to the Minister at their
meeting in December.
• mentioned that Horizons are stopping all supported/supervised
contact from January 2023 as there is nobody to offer it.
explained that the logistics of why it is hard to run this service
include formalising contracts and staffing.
• mentioned that the Children’s Centre is looking to move things
forward with supported contact (cf. supervised). It was mentioned
that if there is a Prohibited Steps Order in place then supported
contact cannot be facilitated. DN stated that having the ability for
Family practitioners
to feedback through
their views to the
Minister on the
supported/supervised
contact provision.
meeting the minister
on 16/12/22.
Practitioners at
Hannan Law to make
enquiries with
colleagues and
report back to
before her meeting
with the Minister.
contact to be supported and in some cases supervised was very
important and suggested that the Family Court Welfare Service
should feed into the Department any data as to number of cases
which needed such support and the type of supervision that was
required. DN agreed that supervised contact is difficult to arrange
and that the core service should be supported contact. DN hoped
that will be able to liaise with the Minister regarding this issue.
• arranging a visit to the Children’s Centre Community Farm.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
• A meeting was held on 13th October 2022 between
and DHB B relating to the Court Welfare Service, in
which various issues were discussed.
• advised that a new full-time staff member will be starting on
3rd January 2023. Her background is in CAFCASS in the
area. This will be the first time the service has
had 2 full-time Court Welfare Officers.
• indicated that for reference usual practice would on average
indicate a level of around 6 reports a month, however there were
11 report requests in November.
• DN hoped that there could be further provisions in the future to
ensure staff had cover for holidays/leave.
• advised that there is also discussion over employing 1 or 2
Social Work assistants who will be able to complete ad hoc duties.
• DN commented that at the meeting on 13th October 2022 the
initiative to include in welfare reports words or pictures from the
child was a positive development. DN referred to the high quality
of the Court Welfare Reports being received. DN noted that the
current monthly output of reports was unsustainable for a single
CWO to achieve so hoped all went well with the new appointment.
3. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Domestic Abuse Act 2020
• DN stated that an update to the implementation plan was
published earlier in the month referring to various timelines for
when provisions of the Act will be brought into force.
if the training was provided by a lawyer to which commented
that the scenarios were good as they looked at both perspectives
but it would be better to have a balance of input from both
disciplines.
• mentioned a trip to Jersey for training on coercive control in
finance cases, the training was short but useful.
• DN asked if the group had any burning training needs.
mentioned training around parental alienation and referred to
‘alienating behaviours’ as being now more commonly cited by
parties. DN asked for details of experts. explained she is
happy to liaise. asked if there are any Court Directives in the
UK that we could follow. DN responded that there are some we
follow such as PD12J on Domestic Violence but he was not aware
of anything specific to parental alienation other than general case
law.
6. Proposed revision to the statement of financial information
Action
• DN advised the group that have been working hard
on this. asked if this should be one form completed by both
parties or by way of counter parts. DN responded that it should
be filed as one form signed by both parties as, for example, if one
party is unrepresented they might not submit their part.
commented that as consent is the point of the form submitting
only one form is best.
• suggested that there should be more emphasis on the dates of
the last valuation. DN commented that as it is an agreed
document that level of detail was perhaps not required.
• mentioned that any issues raised so far had been
incorporated in the draft and there has been no further feedback.
DN commented that he is grateful of the assistance so far.
• DN advised the Group that once the SOI form is approved it will
be uploaded onto the website for use. commented that more
user friendly formatting would be appreciated.
SR to look into.
7. Any other issues
Action
• commented that some of the Group may have seen reference
to the Separated Parents Information Programme in her reports.
There is online access to this so practitioners on the IOM could
look at it, observation can also be facilitated. DN commented that
this could be a useful resource.
• JPW raised the issue of grandparents’ rights, and their apparent
lack of standing in family proceedings. JPW asked if there were
any further thoughts on this. mentioned that mediation can be
JPW and to look
into this further.
used for anyone including grandparents. DN stated that this
service could be used but may also add issues to an already
fraught situation in parental proceedings. JPW asked if there is
anything else that can be done to keep/maintain relationships as
grandparents feel cut out; JPW asked if mediation can be
promoted by the Law Society in this scenario. commented that
legal aid is available for grandparent mediation but it depends on
the level of family breakdown since, as it is voluntary, both sides
would need to agree. mentioned that Motiv8 are offering
family therapy which could be useful in this scenario.
confirmed that this is funded by the charity.
• had emailed and SR regarding the Statement of
Arrangements for children, found a website which encourages
and helps parents to create a parenting plan and asked if this
could be put on the Court’s website. SR commented that it looks
good but would need IOM Government IT to look into this. DN
raised the issue of intellectual property but that it could still be
used as a tool by family practitioners.
• raised the matter of looking into litigant in person guidance,
explaining that there are many forms of such guidance and asked
what type the Group required. DN commented that the basics
would be suitable to begin with for information on the Courts
website, mentioned that the main issues are conduct and
expectations. stated she will see what she can find in that
regard.
to get more
details.
SR to look into this
being put on the
website.
to reach out to
family practitioners
and report back for
the next meeting.
8. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 29th March 2023 at 2.30pm.
It was noted that by the next meeting there will be a new President of
the Law Society, . DN thanked for her hard work on
FCUG issues.
DN concluded the meeting, and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the Agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
being prioritised in light of the pressure arising through the
implementation of new legislation.
• No other issues to review were raised.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
• The Family Court Welfare Service (“FCW”) was represented by .
DN indicated that had settled in well to the role and was
producing high quality reports. DN raised the concern which was
echoed by attendees that it was wholly impractical for one person
to be expected to carry out all CWO work on their own and
questioned the issue of support.
• indicated that she was looking to develop the role and was
suggesting some initiatives herself to assist with efficiency such as
a paperless recording system. The outcome of the independent
review into the Court Welfare Service carried out by
was awaited regarding the potential future of the Service but such
report had been delayed by the virus but was presently in draft
form. confirmed her workload was now up to capacity in terms
of reports being issued within expected deadlines. As to any
overspill of work such would be an issue for the management of the
Service as to whether there was funding available to continue with
the services of the outside contractor.
• expressed the general view of the meeting that the workload
was too large for one officer to cover particularly factoring in periods
of leave. DN stressed the vital nature of CWS within the family court
justice system and that it needed to be properly funded and
supported.
To await outcome of
review.
3. Contact Centre Contract
Action
• JPW indicated that the issue of a potential contract with the
Children’s Centre had been suspended on the basis that the advice
being given was that the Department of Home Affairs lacked the
vires to enter into that arrangement and that it was likely a matter
for DHSC or Manx Care and discussions were due to happen at a
meeting between DHA and DHSC which was due to occur shortly.
• JPW indicated that a further difficulty was the anecdotal nature
of what was being proposed as to the type of service needed.
• As to feedback regarding the type of service required being fully
supervised or simply supported contact DN indicated his view was
that the supported service was the provision most needed.
agreed but indicated that she would not wish to see such service
being used to reinstate a seemingly common practice previously of
a general demand from the resident parent for contact to be
supervised. DN concurred that such provision was only appropriate
in a minority of cases which meant that predicting the type of
service provision in a small jurisdiction was difficult.
7. Port Alerts
Action
• DN referred to the problem referred to him by about the
effectiveness of Prohibited Steps Orders being served at the Sea
Terminal and the Airport. The issue arose when a parent had
gained permission to take a child away but that parent/child were
not checked at all at the Sea Terminal.
• DN explained that perhaps the wording of the current orders
raised too great an expectation. In light of the privatisation of
security services at the ports and the number of operators at the
airports together with data protection concerns there was not a
statutory system that could be used to force operators to check
passenger identities outside the systems operated by police.
• As pointed out by and JPW there was no requirement on
domestic departures to check passenger identification such that
bookings in false names could be made.
• indicated that discussions had taken place with the HMAG
Chambers on the issue regarding the role of DOI in ensuring as far
as possible that PSOs are not breached.
• DN suggested therefore that in reality to be effective parties would
need to involve police if an imminent risk (within 48 hours) of
removal became known. The police could utilise powers to prevent
the commission of an offence of child abduction under the Child
Custody Act 1987.
8. Any other issues
raised the difficulty she had encountered regarding “open proposals”
and what that meant in a case where she had been confronted with
detailed arguments in such a proposal. was invited to give his view
and indicated that his expectation would be that an Open Proposal was
effectively a short statement as to the order that the party was hoping
to achieve and not a skeleton argument in support. DN concurred and
suggested that in a complicated case there would usually be a further
direction for the filing of skeleton arguments such that the open
proposal was a relatively short and succinct document.
9. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 19th October 2022 at 2.30pm.
DN concluded the meeting, and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the Agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– KLSA
(DHB B) Deputy High Bailiff Brooks
– KLSA
– Family Team
– KLSA
– Family Team
– Guardian Ad Litem
– Family Team
( – Corlett Bolton & Co
– Bridson Halsall
– Corlett Bolton & Co
– Bridson Halsall
– Callin Wild
– MannBenham
– Callin Wild
– Family Court Welfare
– Victim Support
– Family Court Welfare
– Children’s Centre
– Prison & Probation
Children’s Centre
– Hannan Law
– Legal Aid Certifying Officer
– ASTU Ltd
– Legal Aid Team Manager
– Gray Law
Deemster Cook
Alexander Armstrong – IOM Courts
Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for Justice
and Home Affairs
– Myerscough & Clegg
Stephen Robertson – IOM Courts
– Simcocks
– Simcocks
1. Review of points arising from the last meeting on 29th March
2023
Action
DN asked if there were any specific issues following the previous
FCUG meeting and mentioned that as per the action points of the
previous meeting Legal Aid Certifying Officer had been
invited and thanked her for attending. introduced herself to the
group.
No other points were raised.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
DN was pleased to advise that from a Courts Administration
perspective all is working well with the Court Welfare Service and
praised the staff for their work.
gave an update to the group regarding the changing of staff
roles at the Prison & Probation service. has recently taken on
of the Court Welfare
Service.
mentioned that ensuring the Service is seen to be more ‘family
friendly’ rather than being recognised as Prison & Probation is a high
priority. An example was given of altering the headings on forms in
that regard.
provided an update from the administrative staff from the Family
Court Welfare service who currently have no major issues to report.
DN stated that these updates tie in with the experience of the
Courts, highlighting the quality reports that are being received and
the benefits this provides in reaching decisions.
confirmed that she feels that she has settled in well to the Family
Court Welfare service.
3. Children’s Centre
Action
explained that funding is still the main issue for the Children’s
Centre, specifically in relation to supervised contact. highlighted
that they are already running into issues so early on in provision of
the supervised contact centre service and are already in a deficit
from the first quarter which is a big concern for the Children’s Centre.
DN mentioned that at the last meeting the Minister requested
figures from the group. Family practitioners had no update on any
statistics/feedback being provided to the Minister.
confirmed Children’s Centre staff had met with the Minister and
provided some figures. However it was noted that this issue did not
seem to be a priority for the Department of Home Affairs.
advised the group that there had been 28 separate supervised
contact sessions completed in the last quarter. Although this service
DN stated that the combination of the lack of legal aid funding and
apparent reticence of the Department of Home Affairs to
contractually underwrite a portion of the service provided by the
Children’s Centre is a significant setback for the FCUG and the family
justice system generally. This will have a knock on effect for any
ongoing cases making them more protracted and costly. The
requirement for the State to provide some form of supervised
contact for parents who cannot afford such service privately was
imperative. Phased supervised contact was often needed when
aiming to establish and build the beneficial relationship for the child
with the non-resident parent. DN noted that the lack of progress in
terms of government funding of this issue appeared to be contrary
to the assurance given to Tynwald in the last administration that the
matter was to be addressed.
DN noted that there was an expectation from FCUG that family law
practitioners would provide feedback/data to the President of the
Law Society as suggested at the last FCUG meeting regarding the
number of supervised contact cases they had encountered, how
many sessions needed to be supervised etc. etc. and sadly this has
not yet happened. DN did not want the continuing lack of
Government funding to be blamed simply on a lack of data from the
profession. suggested using a central email to all practitioners
as a forum to gather this necessary data as being needed.
DN thanked the Children’s Centre for providing figures to the
Minister and highlighted that the feedback he had received regarding
the actual work of the supervisors in making supervised contact
sessions child focused and enjoyable was very positive.
DN to look into
previous mention of
this matter in
Tynwald
to send email to
all family
practitioners and in
response All FCUG
practitioners to
provide data as to
the number of cases
of supervised
contact encountered
and details of
funding needed.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021
DN gave an update from Stephen Robertson as follows:-
The DHSC are at the instructions stage in respect of all the
secondary legislation regulations they need to bring in. There is
a steering group and a published implementation plan. Once we
have a clearer idea of the Regulations that the DHSC are making,
the General Registry will begin reviewing and revising the
necessary Rules of Court.
The DHSC have noted in Appendix 1 of their implementation plan
(available on DHSC website) that the General Registry have a
number of other pieces of legislation competing for resources
and therefore the timescale for production of the court rules for
adoption will need consultation with the General Registry.
DN commented that the date indicated for implementation of the
Act published in the plan seemed to be around the first/second
quarter of 2024 but that there may need to be revisions in such
timescales. DN commented that this legislation will have an impact
on both the Summary and High Court work.
b) FCUG Legislation Sub-Committee
There was no update in this area however DN commented that it is
hoped that members of the FCUG who raised the issue are busy
working away in the background particularly regarding any updating
necessary to the CYPA 2001.
5. Mediation
Action
Legal Aid funding of Mediation
stated that in regard to legal aid funding of mediation, in the first
instance it is determined whether the applicant qualifies. gave
an example of a case where the Applicant qualified for legal aid
funding however it was noted that the Respondent earned in excess
of £50,000.00 so splitting the mediation costs 50/50 was suggested.
explained that the tax payer would not be happy if they knew
one party was able to pay/contribute towards mediation but Legal
Aid paid for the whole cost. In response noted that although
Legal Aid have highlighted the cost of mediation, there is generally
a recognised and notable savin in terms of mediation helping to
conclude cases quickly rather than cases being protracted and
publically funded for long periods. DN acknowledged each case must
be treated and assessed individually but suggested that pointing to
the potential cost savings of mediation may well be appropriate
justification for a certifying officer to authorise funding the full cost
of mediation. confirmed that she is only able to work within the
regulations and be accountable but is happy to discuss further with
family practitioners on a case by case basis.
confirmed that she is getting referrals and welcomed more
referrals coming in.
DN asked the Group for their thoughts on whether mediation should
be made compulsory, commenting that really this would be a
political decision but the views of the FCUG would be helpful.
mentioned to the Group that she is also working towards the
accreditation. DN commented that it is good for availability of
mediators to spread out between family law firms. commented
that she is also qualified but has not undertaken mediation for some
time.
6. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
DN mentioned the training on 30th March 2023 regarding ‘no fault
divorce’ and the Domestic Abuse Act 2020. Attendees commented
that there was good attendance and the training was good once it
got going.
DN asked the Group if anyone had been utilising webinars. CC
mentioned that they receive daily emails from , commenting that
this is useful and reasonably priced. commented that Corlett
Bolton also find this a useful resource. mentioned Family Law
Weekly as a good free resource. DN commented that webinars
probably provided practitioner’s with the best value in access to
training and that any useful ones viewed could be highlighted
through FCUG.
7. Statement of Financial Information
Action
DN stated that the Statement of Information (SoI) proforma has
been completed and is available on the IOM Courts website, in
editable pdf format.
DN discussed with the Group a cut off period for the use of the old
Statement of Information. It was decided that from 1st September
2023 it will be expected that practitioners submit the new version
of the Statement of Information.
Practitioners to
submit new SoI
form from 1st
September onwards
8. Attorney General’s involvement with the appointment of
Guardian Ad Litem
Action
DN mentioned a letter he had received from at the
Attorney General’s Chambers that had been circulated to the Group.
Unfortunately nobody had been able to attend today from Chambers
to talk to the subject. The letter indicated that the current protocol
important that the vulnerable should not slip through the net but be
properly represented in family proceedings where necessary.
9. Potential amendment to the Initial Application for Divorce
form to include details of any children of the family
Action
DN provided an update from Stephen Robertson as follows:-
The No Fault Divorce process has been in force and operational
since 3rd April 2023 and is generally going well. A few tweaks
have been applied to the application form following feedback
from staff and customers but in general applications are being
filed correctly. Possible further change following FCUG meeting
regarding children.
So far the total initial applications for divorce to date are 79 (46
Sole & 33 Joint).
The 20 week stage will be upon us at the end of the Summer.
DN commented that it is gratifying to hear that the number of joint
cases are up compared to the low numbers seen in the UK, but noted
too that there is a possibility that this may level out over time.
DN voiced an issue that court staff are having in relation to litigants
in person not reading the notes and therefore not submitting a
Statement of Arrangements (SoA), where necessary, with their initial
application and then later down the line it coming to light that there
are children of the family. Therefore it is likely that an amendment
to the initial application will include a requirement to confirm children
of the family thereby providing the court staff with the opportunity
to request a SoA to be filed from the Applicant if not submitted
initially.
mentioned that something that she is finding with the new
process is that parties are coming to an agreement regarding
finances quickly but are having to wait for the 20 week period for a
provisional divorce order to be made before the financial consent
order can be sent to the Court – leaving the opportunity for the
parties to change their minds on the consent orders. DN commented
that there does not seem to be any other work around in relation to
the 20 week wait as the legislation does not allow the FP Order to
be made until a Provisional Divorce Order has been issued.
commented that she has had similar matters where the 20 week
wait can mean that if the parties sign a consent order early on, the
‘signed by date’ becomes quite old. DN commented that an idea
would be to complete a separation agreement with the parties rather
than sign the consent order prematurely. commented that this
was how advocates previously worked with clients however it
duplicates workload and costs. Advocates now tend to steer clients
towards consent orders as they are enforceable. asked if it would
be possible for the draft consent orders to be signed and filed with
the Court, then held on the file until the advocate on record indicates
they would like them to be issued. This enables the parties to see
that the draft consent order has been ‘submitted’ to the Court and
are therefore less likely to want to make further amendments. DN
commented that although this may help clients psychologically, they
are still able to challenge parts of the order as it hasn’t been sealed.
commented that although it is only psychological it does tend to
deter clients from making continuous changes. advised that the
onus would be on the advocates to notify the Court when to issue
the consent order and there would need to be confirmation from
both sides.
DN and DHB concluded that there do not seem to be difficulties in
holding draft financial consent orders on files as long as up to date
SoIs are provided at the time the FP order can legally be issued.
However, there may be issues in terms of the administration of this.
If problems arise the FCUG will be advised.
10. Any other issues
Action
mentioned a recent Court order that required a state pension
entitlement forecast. spoke to who
confirmed that it is the Income Tax Division of the Isle of Man
Treasury who can provide this information not Social Security.
to email the
Court with the
correct information
from
for any future Court
orders.
11. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as Wednesday 29th November 2023 at 2.30pm.
DN concluded the meeting and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the Family
Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– Bridson Halsall
(DHB B) Deputy High Bailiff Brooks
– Bridson Halsall
(SR) Stephen Robertson – IOM Courts
– MannBenham
– Family Team
– Pringle Law
– Family Team
– Gray Law
– Family Team
– ASTU
– Family Court Welfare
– ASTU
– Family Court Welfare
– ASTU
– Family Court Welfare
– KLSA
– IOM Children’s Centre
– Hannan Law
(JPW) Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for
Justice and Home Affairs
– Hannan Law
– Corlett Bolton
– Simcocks
Alexander Armstrong – IOM Courts
– President of IOM Law Society
– Callin Wild
– Victim Support
1. Review of points arising from the last meeting on 30th
November 2022
Action
• DN stated that the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 is not on the agenda
under as “Legislative Changes” as it is now in force, but noting that
there would be training for advocates orgainsed by the Law Society
on 30th March 2023.
• DN asked the group if there has been any update in relation to the
issue of grandparent’s rights. JPW confirmed there has been no
advance since the last meeting but it was really a matter of raising
awareness of mediation for this purpose with the public. asked the
group if legal aid would apply in this scenario. explained that there
are issues with legal aid funding regarding mediation generally with
the recent suggestion that if only one party is legally aided the other
party is being asked to pay/contribute, hich had not been an issue
in the recent past.
paper records. This is currently being looked into by GTS and Data
Protection Officers. advised that these changes have come from
advice from . An example of a reason for this to be
introduced being children requesting to see their records later down
the line and the need for reports etc. to be made with that in mind.
• DN commented that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes
and noted that the Courts are also going through a change in regard
to the introduction of new electronic system, currently being
introduced within the summary criminal sphere, but soon to
encompass the Civil Division including Family Business.
3. Children’s Centre
Action
• advised the group that the Children’s Centre is now fully accredited
as a supervised contact centre. So far they have had three requests
for supervised contact without legal aid funding and in all three cases
the parents were unable to sustain payment once the process had
commenced (one father refused to pay and two parents could not
afford to continue). The group wondered if the Law Society can help
with funding. indicated the Children’s Centre is worried that as they
are a charity they can’t let the possibility of bad news
articles/headlines from parents who aren’t happy tarnish their
reputation. Therefore they are currently only accepting referrals if
funding is secured. DN noted that this problem related back to the
issue over the supervised/supported contact provision funded by
Government which had been a repeated topic at the FCUG. In
response JPW indicated that it is difficult to understand the scope of
demand for the service, i.e. social service cases or private family law
cases. DN suggested it would be helpful for the Law Society and
Minister to discuss this issue. JPW stated that it would be helpful to
receive data, such as in respect of the three families mentioned, as
without the data it is difficult to make a business case showing the
need for funding particular in atmosphere of scarce public finances.
JPW appreciated this as being a big issue and wishes to help resolve
the matter. indicated that all referrals so far in the three weeks
since becoming accredited have been Court ordered, there have been
eight cases, soon to be nine, since becoming accredited. DN
commented that maybe FCW could provide some data to inform
decision makers. mentioned that they only have limited data due
to the service being previously provided by Horizons. DN asked if the
Children’s Centre could provide the Minister with numbers and contact
hours of any Horizons’ cases referred to them and for FCW to provide
similar data in terms of numbers of such cases and hours sought since
Horizons’ departure.
1. Children’s
Centre to provide
statistics to
Minister of any
historic (last 2
years) and current
requests for
supervision (no. of
cases, type (-
Court, DHSC or
private) and
hours).
2. FCW to provide
similar statistics to
Minister since
Horizon’s
departure.
3. to take this
issue back to
4. Practitioners
to feedback
number of cases
requiring
supervision
through President
to the Minister.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Divorce Dissolution & Separation (Isle of Man) Act 2020
• DN asked SR to give a brief update of where the new process is up
to. SR advised that the rules, forms and website information are in
place ready to go live on 3rd April 2023.
• DN asked the practitioners if they had clients waiting to utilise the ‘no
fault divorce’ procedure. Practitioners confirmed there were a number
of people waiting to file under the new process.
• DN also referred to the training scheduled for 30th March 2023 on this
topic and believed that the new system should work well. The
matrimonial finance regime will remain in its present form. DN
commented that at the next meeting practitioners will have
experience of the new divorce process and any practical issues arising
could be discussed then.
b) Adoption Act 2021
• SR provided an update to the group: Legal Officer Alex Armstrong
and the Chief Registrar had a meeting with the DHSC several months
ago. The DHSC is to provide the Courts with an implementation plan
once finalised. SR commented that court rules are required to be
drafted/be in place prior to commencement. In light of that, DN
commented that implementation did not appear to be imminent.
c) FCUG Legislation Sub-Committee
• DN asked if there has been any advance since the potential forming
of a sub-committee was raised at the last meeting. explained that
interested practitioners had discussed matters and that a list of
potential changes to the CYPA/MPA was sent to the previous President
of the Law Society but they were yet to receive a response. Some of
the main issues included step-parents acquiring parental responsibility
and the issue of pensions.
• Regarding pensions, DN mentioned an upcoming Appeal Court case
which would highlight the difficulty of England & Wales based pension
providers not recognising IOM Pension Sharing Orders and the lack of
reciprocity in that regard. DN commented that it could be worth
highlighting the issue of pensions to the Chief Minister for raising
perhaps at the British – Irish Council as it is affecting IOM residents.
The issue will be more prominent once there is a decision in the
to provide list
to to take this
back to Vicki
Unsworth.
Appeal Court. JPW confirmed she would be willing to make
representations.
• On a separate issue, JPW highlighted that with the Domestic Abuse
Act 2020 now being in force she is looking for any feedback that may
be useful. DHB B mentioned that he has dealt with one case and
Magistrates have dealt with one case. DN asked practitioners to
feedback any issue to the Minister.
Practitioners to
feedback to JPW
about their
experience
regarding domestic
abuse legislation.
5. Mediation – Advocates workshop
Action
• DN referred to an email from to DHB B regarding a new
initiative looking into ways of dealing with family cases outside of
Court. That email had been circulated to FCUG members.
has organised a Zoom meeting at 12 noon on 4th April 2023
for any practitioners interested to give him their feedback on such an
initiative. DN commented that it is far better for the parties if matters
can be dealt with outside of Court.
• mentioned that she is in communication with who is
offering to come to the Island and provide information to advocates
regarding the benefits of mediation. They are currently liaising over
dates and any possible funding. suggested that there are some
advocates practising in the field of family work who sadly did not
appear to see the benefits of mediation. DN asked the group about
the potential of taking steps to make mediation compulsory prior to
attending Court. commented that this would require more
mediators and funding, and referred again to her recent experience
about having difficulty in gaining legal aid funding whereas previously
funding was generous so as to encourage both parties to attend and
save costs in the long run.
• commented that in the UK vouchers are provided for 30 minute
sessions to encourage parties to attend mediation and provide the
opportunity to see whether mediation is suitable for that individual
case. The group confirmed inviting an officer from legal aid to attend
the next meeting so as to provide the legal aid position on this.
• DN mentioned the Court’s continued endeavours to seek consent
from the parties for cases to divert to mediation at the first directions
hearing.
• confirmed the legal aid mediators currently include
. DN &
recalled previously organising meetings between
mediators which seemed to be useful. brought up the difference
between providing dual or sole mediation. commented that
could help to bridge this gap.
• advised the group of the Children’s Centre’s intention to train two
mediators to help with contact. This is due to happen within the next
12 months however there is the issue of funding. DN commented that
legal aid previously were the driving force behind mediation.
6. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
• DN mentioned the training happening tomorrow (30th March 2023)
for the No Fault Divorce and Domestic Violence.
• mentioned the possible future mediation training with Helen
Pittard.
• mentioned an email sent to within her education
role regarding access to relevant webinars (e.g. the use of covert
recording in family proceedings). referred to the Law Society’s
council meeting next week which may provide clarity on this training
possibility.
to add this
topic to list of
matters referred to
the Law Society
President.
7. Proposed revision to the Statement of Financial Information
Action
• DN noted that the Statement of Information is almost finalised
however there is a small amendment to be made to add regarding
enforcement of pension sharing orders outside of the jurisdiction.
Once completed the document will be available on the IOM Courts’
website.
• requested that the document be available in Word format as PDF
can cause difficulties. SR confirmed the form will be in Word format
as a form fillable document.
Courts’ staff to
upload finalised
document to IOM
Courts’ website.
8. Any other issues
Action
None
9. Date of next meeting
Action
DN concluded the meeting and thanked all for their attendance. Following
the meeting it was confirmed that provisional date for the next FCUG meeting
was set as Thursday 20th July 2023 at 2.30pm.Any issues for the agenda
of the next meeting to be emailed to the Family Court inbox.
10. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 20th March 2024 at 2.30pm.
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to have these
meetings and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
• There were no other matters arising from the last meeting.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
• updated that the Court Welfare Service is moving to Nivison
House in the next 4 weeks. The Service also had a new member
of staff, , who joined in April and brought with him
20+ years of CAFCASS experience. Furthermore, there was the
post of a new admin. officer in the pipeline.
• indicated the , recently had shared
information with the Judiciary regarding a proposal for the
introduction of a CWO safeguarding letter being routinely issued
before first hearing. DN confirmed receipt of the suggestion in a
letter he had received that day from . The proposal was
that a safeguarding letter would be used as an initial reporting
measure by CWOs which would be compiled based on the parties’
position statements and relevant agency/social services checks
received prior to the first hearing. To assist the process there
would be a requirement for an initial generic court order at the
time of issuing the section 11 application requiring both the police
and social services to provide the relevant safeguarding
information to the CWO. The safeguarding letter would highlight
any concerns or issues that may affect the safety and welfare of
the child/children and assist with potential early disposal.
Practitioners raised some concerns at the meeting including delays
regarding receipt of the results of inquiries from statutory agencies
and the potential negative affect that could be perceived by clients
of such process being seen as “raising the ante” in cases that may
easily settle. DN asked for the letter from to be
circulated to the group and for practitioners to give their
considered responses as to the value of such an additional process
and how best it could be implemented within 21 days.
Courts Admin to circulate
the letter from
to FCUG attendees for
any comments on the
proposal by practitioners
to be made within 21
days.
3. Children’s Centre
Action
• DN read to the Group the updating letter from the Minister
regarding funding for supervised contact sessions. Such explained
that progress had been made in this regard with a formal
delegation having been issued by the DHSC to enable the DHA to
contract with a 3rd party to facilitate this contact and a contract
had also been prepared and agreed in principle between the DHA
and the 3rd party provider. confirmed that position. The
question of funding of cases where proceedings had not yet been
issued was raised by who commented that, in cases that had
not yet needed proceedings to be issued but required supervised
contact, it would be worrying if practitioners were going to have
to issue court applications for matters just so that some supervised
contact could be funded. confirmed that the supervised contact
provision funded by DHA was for FCW referrals only and advocates
cannot refer unless the contact can be privately funded. The
provision was purely for FCW on a 6 week basis but FCW could
suggest more if required. confirmed that conversations with
the Minister were still ongoing regarding any need for further
provision. DN acknowledged the limitations in the scheme that
was being introduced but viewed it as being a positive start.
• DN explained how impressed the court staff had been with the
facilities at the Children’s Centre HQ at Wallberry Farm during their
recent visit. DN thanked the Children’s Centre for hosting the
informative tour and the staff for the vital role the charity played
in improving the outlook for children in the Island.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021
• AA updated the group and confirmed that proposed new High
Court rules on adoption existed in a draft format and were with
the AG’s Chambers for review. Court forms are currently being
reviewed. confirmed that papers had just landed on his desk
this week and he will review them as soon as possible.
• gave an update on the Family Placement Service and their
focus on making a clear separation between fostering and
adoption. Various jobs within the FPS were out to advert. They
were also urgently seeking foster carers.
• DN commented that from the Court’s perspective they had seen
an increase in adoption applications. confirmed that there had
been six applications received so far this year. explained that
the adoption side of FPS was now receiving more attention.
b) FCUG Legislation Sub-Committee
• confirmed that she was in the process of collating a list of
proposed changes to put forward to and asked that if
anyone wished to add to that list they should let her know.
• DN said that any issues should be raised through the
subcommittee.
5. Mediation
Action
• DN confirmed that had helpfully been in touch
with SR regarding improving the information about mediation on
the Court’s website. SR confirmed that most changes had been
done but some elements were still in progress. DN recorded his
thanks to for his input. DN advised that both he and
generally involving cases where one party was a litigant-in-
person, where the L.i.P. saw the drafting phase as an opportunity
to reargue their case. Practitioners were asked, as far as possible,
not to encourage or entertain that practice. added that CWO
now had a policy of sharing the outcome of a court process with
the children and delays to orders being issued had a negative
impact on children in receiving such reassurance.
• asked if the Court is likely to consider issuing standard orders.
DN referred back to previous FCUG discussion whereby the
orders drafted should generally follow the format of the published
standard orders in England & Wales and in financial provision
cases they should have clear headings and be appropriately
differentiated by way of the recital of agreements and
undertakings from the matters that the court is specifically able
to order as contained in operative terms of the Order. The E&W
published standard orders were quite basic in the provisions
covered. mentioned that Michael Horton KC had previously
given a ‘drafting financial orders’ training session and wondered
if this would be of assistance. It was suggested that such could
be a subject for further training organised by the Law Society.
• confirmed that Tynwald should ‘this very day’ be approving
the Legal Aid fees amendment and as soon as had such
confirmation she would share it with colleagues via the Law
Society newsletter.
8. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 27th November 2024 at 2.30 p.m.
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to have
these discussions and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– GAL
(HBB) High Bailiff Brooks
– Psychology.im Ltd
(SR) Stephen Robertson – IOM Courts
– KLSA
(AA) Alexander Armstrong – IOM Courts
- KLSA
– Family Team
– Bridson Halsall
– Family Team
– ASTU
– Family Team
– Hannan Law
– Gray Law advocates
– Hannan Law
– Gray Law advocates
– Hannan Law
– Family Court Welfare
– Corlett Bolton
– Family Court Welfare
– Callin Wild
– Family Court Welfare
– The Chameleon Clinic
– Mediator
– Pringle Law
Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for Justice
and Home Affairs (“the Minister”)
– Children’s Centre
– Victim Support
– Myerscough & Clegg
– President IOM Law
Society
– Family Court Welfare
1. Review of points arising from the last meeting on 29th
November 2023
Action
As to the formatting problems regarding the electronic Statement
of Information form, DN explained that it was thought that the IT
issue had been fixed. DN asked the group to let Court staff know
if there are any further issues as this could relate to what software
people are using.
The No Fault Divorce Rules on the Court’s Website, as mentioned
at the last meeting, could be found in two places on the website
(in the ‘Rules of Court’ tab and in the ‘No Fault Divorce’ tab using
the ‘2023 Rules’ tab).
The application form to use a McKenzie Friend had been put on
the IOM Courts website and can be found under the ‘No Fault
Divorce’ tab within the ‘Forms’ tab and also under the ‘Forms’ tab
within the ‘Divorce Proceedings and Related Matters’. DN
confirmed the form will also be added to the ‘Children’s Matters’
tab in due course.
Regarding the issue of reciprocal enforcement of financial orders
in respect of pension sharing, DN confirmed that the update from
the Minister had indicated that she had kindly written to her
counterpart within the UK Government raising the problem and a
response was awaited. Any progress will be reported at a future
meeting of the FCUG.
There were no other matters arising from the last meeting.
2. Court Welfare Service
Action
DN was pleased to welcome to the group and asked if there
was an update in respect of the Family Court Welfare Service.
addressed the group with an update and stressed how pleased
the service was to be up to strength with attending her first
FCUG meeting. commented that they continue to be proud of
the work being produced by the Court Welfare Officers and are
keen for it to continue.
mentioned that there should be an update regarding the issue
of the contract for supported/supervised contact with the
Children’s Centre at the next FCUG meeting. highlighted that
the Family Court Welfare Officers are finding the absence of
provision professionally frustrating which has negative impacts on
the children, restricts the Service’s abilities to fully report on
options and creates delays in proceedings. hoped there would
be a positive update at the next meeting.
reported that the Family Court Welfare service is moving and
will be based at Nivison House on Prospect Hill in the near future.
DN thanked for the update and was pleased that the Family
Court Welfare Service is fully staffed as the Court relies on them
so heavily. DN asked if the move to Nivison House would have
any impact on the service and confirmed that the move will
provide a higher level of confidentiality and will be a more
appropriate base for the service.
3. Children’s Centre
Action
DN confirmed with the Group that there was no one present from
the Children’s Centre today but the issue of supervised contact
remains an issue highlighting comment that there should be
an update by the next meeting and progress was hopefully being
made on that issue.
DN reported that since the last meeting the Court had been
keeping a record of any cases requiring or likely to require
supervised/supported contact and there have been four cases
since the start of the year. DN commented that this may be only
a proportion of cases needing the provision as some form of
supervision may be a starting point in cases before they get to
Court. DN reminded the Group that it is still up to practitioners to
record numbers of cases outside of court proceedings and
suggested setting up a list using the same format as used by the
Court i.e. recording the date, case number (if applicable), number
of children, type of supervision, frequency, duration of the
sessions, the likely period needing supervision and who is paying
for the service.
DN read a written update from the Minister indicating that a final
position on funding for supervised contact via the Children’s
Centre should be communicated at the next FCUG meeting. The
Department’s priority being funding for any supervised contact
ordered by the Court for cases which required to be reported on
by Family Court Welfare Officers.
highlighted the significant impact that the lack of this service
is having as she has had to ask the Children in Need charity for
funding for one case which is currently awaiting approval and
highlighted another case that unfortunately was not granted
funding by the charity. DN commented that situations such as this
were what FCUG had been keen to move away from and it was
hoped the public funding for the Children’s Centre to provide the
service would be forthcoming.
advised the group that IOM Law Society President, , had
requested data for supported contact cases, DN reminded the
group of the need for practitioners to provide this information.
Practitioners to continue
to take note of
supervised/ supported
contact cases
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021
AA updated the group and explained that liaison is continuing and
the final draft set of regulations had been received, these were
sent to the steering group and looked at internally. From this the
feedback will then be provided to the Department regarding any
possible changes before the Act is brought into force. Adding that
it is the intention of the Department for the Act to come in later
this year. AA added that, so far, the thoughts are that the current
rules should still work with the new Act. DN noted the progress
being made.
b) FCUG Legislation Sub-Committee
AA updated the group on the six key areas that were identified by
the sub-committee and then were provided to DN and HBB for
their thoughts before being passed to the Minister to confirm
whether there should be changes in the legislation. AA confirmed
that there was broad support from the Judiciary surrounding the
six key areas and the Minister will be able to look into the feasibility
of such suggestions.
LM confirmed that the sub-committee is meeting again next week.
DN noted that it will be interesting to see what comes from the
idea of changing the name of Residence/Contact Orders to Child
Arrangement Orders incorporating ‘spend time with’ and ‘live with’
provisions. added that when talking to children ahead of
reporting for the Court there is benefit to changing the language
used to be more child focused. DN confirmed that DN and HBB’s
views are neutral on the matter but if an alteration in terminology
is helpful in practice such may justify the change.
5. Mediation
Action
DN noted that at the last meeting it was mentioned that there was
training to be held at Hannan Law by on 11th
December 2023. updated the group and advised that the Manx
Mediation Network has now reformed, currently there are 8
mediators, some being new to mediation. It is hoped that there
can be training offered through the IOM Law Society. DN stated
this was excellent news and asked if there had been a reason for
the lull, confirmed it had simply drifted and needed a kick start.
DN advised that it is very important for practitioners to steer their
clients towards mediation as soon as possible, noting however that
mediation is not currently compulsory. noted that people are
more willing to engage in mediation if they are not forced into it.
explained that he tends to work on an outline or summary of
arrangements with clients which can then be passed on to
advocates which seems to work well.
advised the group that he provides freelance mediation and
will take on legal aid cases. highlighted that although
mediation is not compulsory more could be done to insist people
get more information about it at an early stage and asked if there
is anything more the Court could do to get the message across,
e.g. by making the IOM Court website more user friendly for
litigants in person by using plain English. DN stated that any
suggestions, including what and how areas of guidance on the
website could be changed, would be useful and that all ideas
should be directed to SR.
DN suggested that sending out guidance when returning
processed applications is a possibility e.g. in the letter sent to
applicants highlighting information about mediation being
available on the Courts website. mentioned he also has a
website with information available, adding that although the Court
tends to be the starting point for people it does not have to be.
added that it is hoped that most advocates already suggest
mediation when meeting with clients. DN also hoped such occurs.
suggested changing the wording of ‘family mediation’ e.g. to
include the word ‘professional’ to see if more people are willing to
engage/look into it. cautioned that such could confuse people
more.
highlighted a recent case involving an inheritance dispute
where mediation worked well. DN mentioned that it is good to
highlight mediation in probate cases as such can be more
vigorously litigated than ordinary family cases.
6. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
confirmed he has had a useful chat with the new Law Society
Education Executive, , who has only been in the
job around 2 weeks.
It was mentioned that civil and criminal advocacy training is well
attended but there is nothing currently for family. mentioned
that CPD is something will be looking into. DN highlighted
the difference in family advocacy to criminal and civil.
mentioned the possibility of training before the new Adoption
Act comes in. mentioned that the Education Committee decide
on training some time in advance so it would be useful to start
thinking about this now so it can be brought to the Law Society in
good time.
mentioned issues with costs orders as it is hard to advise
clients. DN commented that the general approach is costs neutral
i.e. no order.
mentioned two courses that are coming up (one online and
one in person in London) and advised she will send in the links to
be circulated. DN thanked for providing these suggestions and
mentioned that online advocacy training can perhaps be not as
useful as in person training as the role play is an important aspect
of learning. advised that role play can also be completed via
online training with some trainers and if funding is an issue this
Practitioners to email
with suggestions
regarding what training
could be useful & any
barrister/solicitors who
could conduct training
e.g. in regard to the new
Adoption Act
can be a cheaper alternative to going away or bringing trainers to
the Island so may help the Law Society to fund it.
7. Any other issues
Action
DN mentioned the issue of juvenile courts coinciding with family
court being held in courtrooms in the Registries Building as
highlighted by . DN confirmed that this is an issue for directions
lists every other Wednesday and that court administration was
doing as much as possible to prevent this clash. AA confirmed that
this issue is continuously being reviewed. mentioned that the
ICO’s can also be impacted by the juvenile courts as long juvenile
lists can mean very long waiting times for the ICO list set to follow.
DN noted that previously appointment slots had been used for the
juvenile list. confirmed that there use to be a finite list of
juvenile defendants, rather than unlimited listings, but that there
were also more juvenile courts held at that time. DN noted that
listing in the juvenile court was outside the remit of the FCUG but
confirmed all will be done to keep the family court list in a separate
building to the juvenile list although for practical reasons
sometimes such was not possible.
HBB brought up an issue with draft Consent Orders being
returned to advocates for amendment but being re-submitted
without amendment, with staff at the firms apparently not taking
heed of the guidance contained on the communication from the
Court accompanying the return of the defective order. DN
commented that ultimately the Court has to approve the draft
Consent Orders so the need for any amendments suggested by
the court should be addressed.
asked if there are template orders which could be provided to
people who attend mediation. DN noted that, with the necessary
amendments, the layout generally followed the Standard Family
Order layout as published in England & Wales in May 2023 (see
SFO-Vol-1-150523.zipfile and SFO-Vol-2-150523.zipfile). Such
forms being downloadable. As to other useful precedents, SB
mentioned Acting Deemster Michael Horton’s book (Compromise
in Family Law, LexisNexis) as a useful resource. suggested the
use of standard order 2.1 - Financial Remedy Order on Lexis.
Training links as mentioned by :-
https://www.bpp.com/courses/professional-development/family-
advocacy-the-key-principles
https://resolution.org.uk/event/advocacy-for-family-lawyers-july-2024/
8. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as 24th July 2024 at 2.30pm.
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to have
these discussions and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
{NB. Subsequently
rescheduled to 17th
July 2024 to avoid
school holidays}
3. Children’s Centre
Action
confirmed the contract for providing court ordered supervised
and supported contact is now in place. There was to be some
discussion regarding the method of transition to such support for
cases that were moving into the court process which presently
were privately funded. Referrals must be linked to the cases
falling within the role of the Court Welfare Service - Department
of Home Affairs for vires purposes and was restricted to those
cases where there had been a court referral. JPW confirmed this
position. JPW was pleased the contract is now in place and
operating. It was unlikely that additional funding could be offered
as there are no spare funds within the budget. confirmed they
continue to offer a privately funded service at the Children’s Centre
for those who can pay.
confirmed the therapeutic/education service is well utilised and
working very well. “Through the Eyes of a Child” has now been
re-named as “Divorce and Separation – A Child’s View”. Previously
this course was run as a group session and users may have had
to wait some time for a course to take place when there were
sufficient number of attendees. To alleviate such difficulties the
Children’s Centre had piloted education on a 1 to 1 basis which
proved to be much more productive and can be tailored to the
individual’s needs and situation. The group-setting sometimes
had not been as easy to manage. Referrals are now responded to
much more quickly and time is set aside every week for a weekly
review of the caseload. DN commented that the court sometimes
makes attendance on the course a formal direction of the court.
DN thanked and the rest of the staff at the Children’s Centre
for the vital work that they did.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021
AA updated the group by way of email: “Progress on the Court
Rules for Adoption continues. Since the last meeting the draft
Rules have been reviewed by the Attorney General’s Chambers
and Manx Care and feedback provided. The Court is currently
working its way through the feedback and producing a further
draft of the Rules incorporating the same. Once completed, within
the next week or so, they will be reviewed by the drafters and
Deemsters prior to signing. A similar set of Rules, with necessary
modification, will be needed for the Summary Courts and these
will be produced once the High Court Rules are settled. Having
liaised with Chambers, we are aware of some potential difficulties
with the Summary Courts jurisdiction and are investigating the
8. Date of next meeting
Action
The date of the next meeting will be sometime in March 2025. This will
be set administratively and contained in the minutes:-
DATE NOW INSERTED – 26 March 2025 at 2:30pm
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to have
these discussions and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to the
Family Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– Family Court Welfare
(HB) High Bailiff
– Family Court Welfare
(AA) Alexander Armstrong – Legal Officer,
Courts
– GAL
(SR) Stephen Robertson – Civil and Family
Courts Business Manager
– KLSA
– Family Team
(JPW) Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for
Justice and Home Affairs
– Family Team
– Bridson Halsall
– Hannan Law
– Corlett Bolton
– Hannan Law
– Corlett Bolton
– The Children’s Centre
– Pringle Law
– The Children’s Centre
– Pringle Law
– The Children’s Centre
– Hannan Law
– LVW Law
1. Review of action points arising from the last meeting on
26th March 2025
Action
DN apologised to the group as was
erroneously noted in the minutes of 26th March 2025 as
suggesting various training options when the reference should
have been to .
There were no other matters arising from the last meeting.
2. Court Welfare Service
Update from – Pleased to say that they have recruited
successfully last week. , who previously worked as
a CWO, will be re-joining the team on 17th September 2025.
will be reducing her hours to 20 per week from 8th
September 2025.
confirmed that the supervised contact contract is going well,
they are almost at full capacity. They have about 25 hours
supervised available. The ‘Separation and Divorce: A Child’s
View’ course continues to receive positive responses from
parents.
explained that over the last 18 months, the cases they deal
with are increasingly complex and often highly emotive. To an
extent this is side-tracking parents from the needs of the
child(ren), but staff work to bring the focus back. said they
are trying to get parents to use parent plans but staff were
having to do a lot of ’mediating’ between parents. There was a
concern that some parents appear fixated regarding domestic
abuse legislation rather than focussing on the needs of the child.
also asked for 4 weeks’ notice to given to the team (prior to
the commencement of the contracted six weeks of sessions at
the Children’s Centre) when court orders referring to interim
supervised contact were to be issued as there are difficulties at
times making arrangements with parents.
reminded that staff are reluctant to be required to give
evidence in court proceedings and there is no provision for
them to give evidence under the current contract. Such merely
envisaged staff reporting to the Court Welfare Service who in-
turn feed such information to court. DN thanked staff at
Children’s Centre for the work that they do.
JPW was glad that the contract was going well. DHA was in
active discussions with the Dept of Social Care to try and make
the contract more streamlined in terms of vires.
4. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021 – Update provided by AA – Progress
continues. The main issue relates to allocation and powers of
the Courts – i.e. – which rules apply to High Court, which to
Summary Court and the rules that apply to both. The aim is to
have rules in place by next FCUG meeting. AA continues to push
this matter. DN confirmed that there have been 2 step-parent
adoptions concluded since the last FCUG which were
appropriately managed, despite the court having no up-to-date
Adoption Rules. If there were more contentious adoptions the
lack of rules would create significant difficulties and DN has
asked that the urgent need for such rules be taken back to the
drafters such that the Rules be expedited.
b) FCUG Legislation Sub-committee: AA, JPW) –
Update from who gave a list of topics for consideration–
1. Wording change – Contact/Residence to Child
Arrangements.
AA to use best
endeavours to
encourage
finalisation of
drafting of Adoption
Rules by the next
FCUG.
Members of the Sub-
committee to meet in
September and
prioritise such
Date of Next Meeting
Provisional date set as November
[Meeting has been scheduled for 2.30p.m. on Wednesday
12th November 2025 in the Wedding Room]
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to
have these discussions and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to
the Family Court inbox.
(DN) Deemster Needham
– MannBenham
(HB) High Bailiff
– Children’s Centre
– Family Team
– KLSA
– Family Team
– Manx Care
– Family Team
– GrayLaw
– ASTU
- Simcocks
– Hannan Law
– MannBenham
- BridsonHalsall
– Corlett Bolton
– Family Court Welfare
– Hannan Law
– Family Court Welfare
– Family Court Welfare
Jane Poole-Wilson MHK – Minister for Justice
and Home Affairs
Stephen Robertson - Civil and Family Courts
Business Manager
– Myerscough and Clegg
Alexander Armstrong – Legal Officer, Courts
1. Review of points arising from the last meeting on 27th
November 2024
Action
DN welcomed the new members of staff within the court’s family
team, , to the FCUG.
DN referred to the issue of the reported blank page in the on-line
divorce application form raised by on last occasion – Court staff
have been unable to identify the problem but SR has been in touch
with to discuss the issue directly and the latter will alert staff
if it occurs again.
confirmed that the typing error in the Statement of Information
identified by her last time has been corrected.
• There were no other matters arising from the last meeting.
2. Potential Developments in Family Law
Action
DN referred to the recent report, published on 18 December
2024, by the Law Commission for E&W, titled: “Financial
remedies on divorce and dissolution - A scoping report”. Such
made interesting reading which DN commended to the Group. Of
greater interest would be the UK Government’s response thereto
which would need to be carefully monitored so that the Island,
where appropriate, remained in step and able to continue to draw
on the valuable caselaw from E&W. DN commented that rather
than providing specific recommendations, the report outlined
various models for reform. The critical comment of the
Commission had been regarding the wide discretion of judges in
E&W which could lead to uncertain or inconsistent outcomes. DN
commented that in a smaller jurisdiction with a limited number of
judges consistency was easier to maintain. The various models of
proposed reform put forward by the Commission ranged from
codifying the common law principles from the well-known House
of Lords/Supreme Court cases into statute, to a default regime
which would make clear how property would be divided on
divorce with the removal of judicial discretion. DN commented
that although the process of actual reform occurring in E&W could
be relatively lengthy the FCUG and the Sub-Committee on
Legislative reform should keep such matters under review.
FCUG and Sub-
Committee to keep a
watching brief of reform
of ancillary relief in
E&W.
3. Court Welfare Service
Action
Three court welfare officers were present at the meeting. It was
noted that departure from office would occur on 4th June
2025 which would place additional pressure on the remaining
officers.
was introduced and emphasised ongoing recruitment efforts,
with the goal of appointing a replacement before departure
to ease the workload on . also confirmed his willingness to
serve as a direct point of contact.
DN thanked the officers for their hard work and commented that
from the court’s perspective, Court Welfare Officers were
effectively managing their duties and maintaining a high standard
in their reports despite the complexities surrounding certain
ongoing High Court matters.
DN asked how the courts could assist once leaves,
confirmed that officers are well-supported by the courts, with the
courts only requesting essential reports.
DN referred to the statistics recently published in the Annual
Report of 2024 of the Isle of Man Courts & Tribunal Service. The
report revealed a significant decrease in private law family case
numbers since 2019/20, dropping from approximately 80 cases
to just 32 in 2023—a figure consistent with the previous year.
questioned the underlying factors contributing to this decrease
including the Pandemic. Nevertheless, the general feeling
amongst practitioners was that in recent months the family court
had become busier. DN also noted a rise in complex applications,
DHA/FCWS to expedite
recruitment of
replacement CWO
DN highlighted that these situations can occur, particularly in
cases of domestic violence where fact-finding may be required
in both courts. The adversarial nature of fact-finding in the
family court meant that it is never likely to be a speedy process
such that there is a risk that supervision of contact for the non-
resident parent must cease due to their limited resources. Such
cessation of contact is usually not in the interests of the children
involved.
acknowledged the challenging situation, emphasising the
importance of a risk-based, safeguarding approach. Interim
contact orders should ensure contact takes place for the benefit
of the child.
noted that the Department’s support for the Children's
Centre sessions is only available during the court reporting
stage, raising concerns about payment thereafter. Furthermore,
the process cannot begin until the criminal case is resolved,
leaving children at a disadvantage. It appeared that supervised
contact could only proceed in such cases where the parties
were able to cover the costs privately. DN noted the
shortcomings of the contract provision and commented that the
system was not perfect but was better than previously when
there had been no provision at all.
reflected on the minutes from the previous meeting,
mentioning the divorce and separation course for children as a
highly positive initiative. Families can call to book directly, with
a reasonable fee of £120. Leaflets will be distributed to
advocates, and the service currently has no waiting list.
pointed out a URL link to the Children's Centre site, which
serves as an excellent resource for supporting families.
Practitioners are
requested to advise
clients to consider
attending the course as
early as possible
5. Legislative Changes
Action
a) Adoption Act 2021
DN indicated that work on the Adoption Act 2021 rules continues.
The aim is to create a single piece of legislation encompassing
both family and summary courts. Alex Armstrong is liaising with
the Attorney General’s Office and expressed hope that the review
of the final version will not take long. Mr Armstrong provided a
written update, indicating that there has been some back-and-
forth on the rules, but the finalised version is expected shortly.
DN suggested that the statistics in the 2024 Annual Report had
indicated that in the most recent year Adoption numbers were on
the rise, which had resulted in a number of happy adoption
ceremonies occurring in the courts recently. DN gave his thanks
to advocates who represented the adopters for their help in
New court rules on
adoption to be finalised
as soon as possible.
cited as a reason to avoid mediation which could itself make
the resulting litigation more contentious. In the Isle of Man it
was confirmed that legal aid will generally cover the costs of
mediation in appropriate cases which was a very positive
feature. DN suggested that further thought needed to be
given to whether compulsory mediation should be required
and suggested that practitioners’ views should be shared with
the Subcommittee who may wish to explore this matter in
greater detail. A point of concern was the potential delay of
resolving a case due to cancellation of mediation meetings.
Practitioners to give
further thought to
mediation being
compulsory in private
law family cases and
what exceptions should
be to such a step.
7. Training and Continuing Professional Development
Action
DN referred to the Law Society having arranged via the Judge
of Appeal and the Courts a two-day general advocacy training
course taking place on the 2nd and 3rd May 2025 provided by
the Inns of Court College of Advocacy to which some family
practitioners were attending.
indicated that the Liverpool Law Society (“LLS”) offers a
variety of family-specific courses, including online, one-day
events and regular sessions. These courses are designed to be
interactive, engaging, and highly informative, catering
specifically to the needs of family law professionals.
Membership is not a requirement to attend, making them
accessible to all. They also provide an email subscription
service with newsletters delivered four times a week to keep
participants updated on upcoming events and opportunities.
Additionally, solo advocates can benefit from discounted rates,
making it an affordable option. added that the LLS also
conducts three-day care courses, which are highly regarded for
their quality and practical insights.
, explained that the trainer is expected to
visit the Isle of Man to deliver a course, and there is optimism
that attendance fees will hopefully be subsidised to encourage
greater participation. It is anticipated that interest in the
course will be significant, with many eager to attend.
DN expressed strong support for such training and was
pleased at the plans to offer on-Island sessions, making them
more accessible to local participants.
8. Any other issues
Action
DN referred to recent announcements in the UK regarding the
Labour govt. being committed to considering future changes to
the law so as to provide greater protection for unmarried
couples when separating, which practitioners should keep a
watching brief upon.
DN referred to the IOM court statistics which indicated that
the number of joint applications for divorce was slightly
decreasing, while sole applications had slightly risen. Currently,
joint applications accounted for 44% of all cases in the IOM,
compared to 56% being sole applications. It was hoped that
this downward trend of joint applications did not persist. It
was noted that the present ratio in the Island was better than
in E&W where 75% of all divorces were based upon sole
applications. Joint applications were welcomed in that,
inherently, parties were seen to be taking a more collaborative
approach.
DN referred to the current divorce application form not
including a section to confirm if there were children of the
marriage. Instead, applicants acting in person were trusted to
complete a separate Statement of Arrangements for Children
form as required by the guidance note on the form, but such
had the potential to be omitted. To address this issue, the
application form is set to be amended to ensure that this vital
information is not overlooked.
9. Date of next meeting
Action
Provisional date set as early August
[Meeting has been scheduled for 2.30p.m. on Wednesday
6th August 2025 in the Wedding Room]
DN concluded the meeting stating how useful it is to be able to
have these discussions and thanked all for their attendance.
Any issues for the agenda of the next meeting to be emailed to
the Family Court inbox.
Full Response Text
FAMILY COURT USERS GROUP
AGENDA FOR MEETING TO BE HELD
IN THE WEDDING ROOM
ON 21ST OCTOBER 2020 AT 2.30 P.M.
Review of action points arising from the last meeting on 11th July 2018
Our Family Wizard
Pension Sharing
Litigants in person – guidance for
Change of schools – Parents’ consent
Court Welfare Service
Contact Centre Availability
Legislative Changes
Diversion of Offenders and Domestic Abuse Bill
Vulnerable Witnesses
No-fault Divorce
Adoption Bill
Mediation
Training and Continuing Professional Development
Any other issues
Extraordinary Civil Court Users Group Meeting – Covid 19
1st May 2020 at 11:00am
Present at meeting:-
Deemster Corlett (DC), Deemster Needham (DN), Judge of Appeal (JOA)
Stuart
Quayle (SQ), Stephen Robertson (SR)
Agenda:-
•
Email from the President of the IOM Law Society,
, raising the following
points:
1. Electronic filing of exhibits and core/hearing bundles
2. Summary Procedure matters
3. Final hearings before the Appeal Division
4. Remote hearings i.e videolink or telephone
1. Electronic filing of exhibits and core/hearing bundles
Judiciary stated core/hearing bundles are required in hard copy
Agreed that where the judicial member does not require viewing of original
exhibits they can be filed electronically to comply with filing requirements such as
directions orders. An undertaking to file the hard copy at later stage – wording to
be confirmed.
-
Onus is on advocates to ensure original hard copy of exhibits is filed as soon as
practically possible and in any event prior to the final/main hearing. Advocates,
as Officers of the Court under a duty to ensure the court record is complete.
Court staff not required to chase advocates for follow on filing of hard copies.
-
Where the judicial member either wishes to or is required to view/consider
witness statements and exhibits the hard copies of those documents must be
provided.
2. Summary Procedure matters
Concerns that website guidance indicates encouragement to stay any hearings
and the pausing of any form of progression within the proceedings.
-
Judiciary indicated of course this not the case and parties and advocates should
use their best endeavours in working together to progress matters and/or agree
on wording of any necessary consent orders. Nothing stopping advocates doing
this from Courts perspective
-
Pointed out and agreed that possession matters are not being progressed at this
stage.
-
Recognised that advocates should try and be progressive. Where necessary an
application can be made to the court and the relevant judicial member will
consider it in the usual way
3. Final hearings before the Appeal Division
Judiciary confirmed that yes, absolutely hearings were taking place save for
where the parties provided the court with information that necessitated the need
for a short adjournment of a few weeks eg a party suffering from symptoms of
Covid 19 or had been confirmed as positive for Covid 19.
-
To accommodate as best as possible hearings (both directions and final) have
been held in a variety of ways with a combination of one or more individuals
physically in the courtroom and one or more remoting in via videolink or by
telephone.
-
It is vital that society sees that courts such as appeals are progressed to avoid
any unnecessary or unfortunate attempts to hinder justice
-
Some matters, such as costs, have been dealt with on paper
4. Remote hearings
Concerns that whereas criminal and family related courts are using videolink and
telephone for remote hearings, civil courts don’t appear to be engaging them
-
Judiciary indicated remote hearings are available, have been offered and have
taken place for certain matters such as directions and short hearings. Parties,
mainly advocates, have not further sought remote hearings and some have asked
to come to court physically. Nobody is making parties come to the physical
courtroom
-
Due to the nature/type of some cases and the availability of the required kit and
courtrooms there isn’t a principle of general open access to remote hearings but
advocates/parties are free to enquire as to the availability of remote hearings
-
Agreed that holding main hearings eg length of a day or more or where much
documentation is involved is not ideal to hold it for example by telephone.
However again this isn’t out of the question and has taken place on one
occasion. Judiciary are considering such requests on a case by case basis.
-
Where appropriate it is also possible to deal with some matters on paper only
5. Any other business:
Law Society thanked the Judiciary for arranging this meeting and enabling
positive engaging discussion and general approach to the Courts at this time
-
Law Society also passed on their thanks to all members of court staff for their
positive and helpful support in working together in these unusual times.
-
Given the helpful nature of today’s meeting the First Deemster suggested it could
convene more regularly whilst Covid 19 was present. Law Society were very
grateful for such suggestion.
Action points
Law Society to feedback the contents of today’s meeting to its members
Law Society to provide a draft form of words in respect of the Court’s website
guidance to reflect the outcome of today’s discussion
First Deemster to discuss the convening of this group more regularly with the
Chief Registrar.
Meeting ended at 12.15pm.
Civil Court Users Group Meeting
5th November 2020 at 2.30pm
Present at meeting:-
Deemster Corlett (DC), Deemster Needham (DN)
Stuart Quayle (SQ)
Agenda:-
1. Recap on Meeting on 16th June 2020
2. Deemsters’ practice direction of 11th August 2020 (02/2020 Authorities & Bundles)
3. Witness Statements (Proposed English practice direction 57AC)
4. Disclosure pilot (English Commercial Court proposals – practice direction 51U)
5. Inaccurate reading and hearing time estimates (London Commercial Court notice
28th September 2020)
6. Summary assessment of costs – a new form?
7. Duplicate filings
8. Any other business
Recap on Meeting on 16th June 2020
Covid-19 issues
•
Travel restrictions continue to impact upon UK Panel Deemsters, Counsel, experts,
witnesses etc causing delays in hearings and the progression of cases.
Availability of Video links
•
Lots of warning required for video link hearings as it is only available in 3 court
rooms (possibility of 1 set of mobile video equipment being added to court 1 early
next year).
•
Video link is ok for legal submissions but not ideal for witnesses. It is very case
sensitive.
Court Fees
•
Amendments to fixed costs (Rule 11.17) - No proposal received from the Law Society
yet.
Deemsters’ practice direction of 11th August 2020 (02/2020 Authorities &
Bundles)
•
– Early days but has heard no comments on this so far from Law Society
members.
•
DC – If bundles don’t comply with this practice direction they will be sent back.
•
– Noted that the practice direction is not searchable on the courts website.
•
– Direction is published on the courts website under Rules of the High Court of
Justice 2009.
Witness Statements (Proposed English practice direction 57AC) and
Disclosure pilot (English Commercial Court proposals – practice direction
51U)
•
– Noted that the disclosure pilot is under review and may be extended/changed.
•
DC – IOM Courts require a protocol/practice direction in respect of electronic
disclosure.
•
– Agrees with need for protocol to provide consistency and certainty for
practitioners.
•
– Suggested that the Law Society consider both the proposed English practice
directions and a protocol for electronic disclosure and come back to the court with
comments.
Inaccurate reading and hearing time estimates (London Commercial Court
notice 28th September 2020)
•
DC – An estimated reading time would be helpful once the matter has been set down
for hearing. This estimate can be updated later on if necessary.
Summary assessment of costs – a new form?
•
Form to be updated for example to split the “work on documents” box into more
relevant categories, e.g. pleadings, correspondence.
•
Law Society to revert to the court with a suggested revised form.
•
Agreed that it should not become over-complex.
Duplicate filings
•
Documents still being sent to the court both electronically and in hard copy.
•
Please file in hard copy only, unless urgent or otherwise requested.
Any other business
•
(not present at this meeting) requested a meeting of the Advocates Fees
Committee to review the conveyancing fees order. A paper from
is to follow.
•
Legal Aid – no updates, last submission made in May, Attorney General to report to
Legal Aid Committee then publish the outcome.
•
Citizens Advice Bureau -
– Advocates have concerns around insurance status if giving advice under
citizens advice bureau.
– Citizens advice have a list of legal aid firms and are always good to send
people to these firms, so help is being given where needed.
Action points following this meeting:
1. Law Society to make proposal on increase on Advocates fixed costs (Part 11 of RHCJ
2009).
2.
to follow up on issue with searching courts website for Practice Direction
02/2020.
3. Law Society to provide comments on Witness Statements (Proposed English practice
direction 57AC) and the disclosure pilot (English Commercial Court proposals –
practice direction 51U). These comments should also include the issue of electronic
disclosure.
4. Law Society to provide draft amended form for Summary Assessment of costs.
5. Reminder re: duplicate filings to be published in Law Society newsletter.
6.
to produce a paper with proposals re: conveyancing fees for DC consideration.
Thereafter a meeting will be arranged.
The next Civil Court Users Group meeting will take place in approximately 6 months’ time
(date to be confirmed) unless there is a second wave of Covid-19 and an emergency
meeting is deemed necessary.
Civil Court Users Group Meeting
16th June 2020 at 2.30pm
Present at meeting:-
Deemster Corlett (DC), Deemster Needham (DN), Deputy High Bailiff Arrowsmith (DHB),
Stuart Quayle (SQ)
Agenda:-
1. Covid-19 allowances/restrictions
2. Video/Telephone links
3. Fees
4. Filings
5. Advocates Training/Education
6. Any other business
Covid-19 allowances/restrictions
•
SQ confirmed that the public counter is now open and from 22 June we will no
longer be posting out documents and will return to using advocates boxes as
normal.
•
The courts website will be updated to confirm that the pre-pandemic arrangements
for all filings will be back in place from 29 June.
•
All signs and tape have been removed from courtrooms but will remain on the
concourse for now. Hand sanitiser and PPE will remain available for those who
request it.
•
The court can now obtain travel exemption for UK Panel Deemsters but this is not
easy to do and it is still not 100% clear how it will work.
Video/Telephone links
•
– can those still “shielding” continue to appear by video/telephone link?
•
DC – There are mixed feelings about video/telephone links. Not happy with
witnesses giving evidence remotely.
•
Confirmed that off island witnesses can dial in from anywhere (do not have to attend
another court) in order to give evidence provided that everyone is satisfied that
nobody else can interfere with evidence.
•
All agreed that remote hearings are difficult.
Fees
•
– Can the advocates fixed costs in Part 11 of RHCJ 2009 (table 1, 2 & 3) be
reviewed and increased? DC confirmed that the Law Society should make a proposal
for his consideration.
•
– Also concerned that general increase in other court fees may block access to
justice for some. SQ confirmed fee remission is available and that Treasury consider
benchmarking when changing any fees.
Filings
•
DC – Skeleton arguments, bundles etc still being filed incorrectly. Going to draft
and issue a short guide on how they should be done. A practice direction will also
be issued once the Justice Reform Bill has been reviewed making them
permanent.
•
Duplicate filings becoming an issue again – only file documents in hard copy,
unless it is an urgent matter (e.g. injunctions) or unless specifically asked to file
electronically.
Advocates training and education
•
Strong desire for Manx Bar exams to be held in November, one student has
already been impacted by time limit due to cancelled sitting and if Novembers
sitting is also cancelled others will be in same situation. Usual educational talks to
be held in September (Law Society looking into technology options).
•
Junior advocates can come and watch any public hearings to help with learning.
Court listings are published on courts website weekly.
Any other business
•
– was a practice direction issued in respect of filing possession matters during
Covid-19 outbreak?
•
DHB – No, possession matters were considered on a case by case basis and
nobody was stopped from filing claims/applications.
•
DC- The only practice direction that was issued related to winding up
applications, but none were filed.
Action points following this meeting:
Law Society to make proposal on increase on Advocates fixed costs (Part 11 of RHCJ 2009).
The next Civil Court Users Group meeting will take place in approximately 6 months’ time
(date to be confirmed) unless there is a second wave of Covid-19 and an emergency
meeting is deemed necessary.
Extraordinary Civil Court Users Group Meeting – Covid 19
27th May 2020 at 12 noon
Present at meeting:-
Deemster Corlett (DC), Deemster Needham (DN)
Stuart Quayle (SQ)
Agenda:-
On-going concerns about civil courts during Covid-19, including:-
1. Video link/telephone hearings
2. PPE/Court building
3. Civil Summary case management
4. Any other business
Video link/telephone hearings
•
DC had a video link hearing on 21 May which was successful but would not have
been suitable for a fully contested matter as words can be lost or become distorted.
•
recently attended a telephone hearing with the Deputy High Bailiff which was
difficult as the line became blocked and Counsel had to repeat parts of their
submissions.
•
Confirmed that parties can “listen in” to a hearing being conducted by
video/telephone link but this must be arranged with courts administration in
advance of the hearing date so relevant details can be obtained and to ensure that
licences are available.
PPE/Court building
•
SQ confirmed that all court rooms and public areas are being marked
[Response truncated — full text is 233,610 characters]