Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
When two worlds collide: the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
Dr Onyója Momoh, Barrister, 5 Pump Court ChambersMost will agree that the relationship between the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions is a match made in heaven. However, the intersection between the 1970...
Familial relationships following a traditional surrogacy arrangement
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn January 2024, Theis J declined to discharge a child arrangements order for contact between a surrogate mother and a...
Practical enforcement
James Snelus, No 5 ChambersA look at some of the problems that can be encountered when enforcing financial remedy orders.  The article is not a comprehensive overview. It briefly considers how to...
Cremation and the family: some burning issues
Andrew Bainham, Emeritus Reader in Family Law and Policy, University of CambridgeIn this article the author considers the law and practice surrounding modern cremation and the cremation aspects...
Changes to cost limits for Child Abduction and Wardship
Cost Update for Child Abduction and WardshipWhen reviewing current costs limitation for Child Abduction and Wardship it has been agreed following consultation and feedback that the cost limit for the...
View all articles
Authors

Not a Bundle of Fun: the President's Direction on Court Bundles

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Title : Not a Bundle of Fun: the President's Direction on Court Bundles
Slug : not-a-bundle-of-fun-the-president-s-direction-on-court-bundles
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Sep 26, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89185

Julien Foster, Barrister, Goldsmith Chambers. A new President's Direction (PD) in relation to court bundles came into force on 2 October 2006. It replaces the existing President's Practice Direction dated 25 March 2000.The purpose of the article is to set out the main provisions of the PD and how it differs from the previous Practice Direction. However, the article is no substitute for reading the detailed provisions of the PD itself.

The PD is over twice as long as the previous Practice Direction. It is far more detailed in its provision. While it has the advantage of clarifying certain ambiguities that existed in the previous Practice Direction and may well improve the quality of case presentation in court, it places a further significant administrative burden on solicitors and also on the Bar. Without wishing to make practitioners unduly anxious, the author has no doubt that an example will very swiftly be made of a practitioner's non-compliance with the PD in the form of a well-publicised dressing down by a High Court judge. Exactly this happened days after the last Practice Direction came into force, when Wall J (as he then was) launched into and made wasted costs orders against some poor unfortunate who had failed to provide preliminary documents.

The article is divided into sections as follows: differences between the old Practice Direction and the PD; additional brand-new provisions in the PD; frequently asked questions; and recommendations to practitioners. See November [2006] Fam Law for the full article. See November [2006] Fam Law for the full article.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles