24. Managing adjournments and delays

Delay is a welfare issue — but the court must also act fairly

Section 1(2) Children Act 1989 states that, where a question about a child's upbringing arises, the court must have regard to the general principle that delay in determining that question is likely to prejudice the child's welfare.

The Family Procedure Rules reinforce that principle.

FPR 1.1 requires cases to be dealt with justly, having regard to welfare issues, including dealing with them expeditiously and fairly.

The court's powers

FPR 4.1 gives the court wide case-management powers.

Those include power to:

• extend or shorten time for compliance with a rule, Practice Direction or court order;
• extend time even where the application is made after the original deadline has expired;
• adjourn a hearing;
• bring a hearing forward;
• stay proceedings or part of them;
• direct a separate hearing of an issue;
• alter the order in which issues will be heard;
• vary or revoke earlier case-management orders;
• and change or cancel dates previously fixed.

The parties also have a procedural responsibility

FPR 1.3 requires parties to help the court further the overriding objective.

That means, amongst other things:

• complying with orders where possible;
• identifying problems promptly;
• not creating avoidable delay;
• co-operating on practical case-management issues where safe and appropriate;
• and giving the court accurate information about what can realistically be achieved.

When might an adjournment genuinely be necessary?

There is no single closed list.

The court considers the particular reason, its evidential significance, fairness, the child's timetable and whether another course would allow the hearing to proceed.

Missing safeguarding information at an FHDRA

Under the Child Arrangements Programme, where the necessary safeguarding information is unexpectedly unavailable at the FHDRA, PD12B says the court should adjourn the application until the safeguarding checks are available.

In that situation, interim orders should not ordinarily be made without safeguarding checks unless an order is required to protect the child's safety.

What may be less persuasive?

Depending on the circumstances, the court may be less receptive where the real reason is:

• a party simply has not prepared;
• a deadline was ignored without explanation;
• the party wants more time to search for evidence which may not exist;
• the application is tactical rather than necessary;
• the same reason has caused repeated earlier adjournments;
• a late change of position could reasonably have been raised earlier;
• or the missing material would make no real difference to the decision before the court.

Planned and purposeful delay

The Court of Appeal has recognised that delay is not always uniformly harmful.

In an appropriate private-law case, planned and purposeful time may allow:

• a child to stabilise;
• a carefully staged arrangement to be tested;
• therapeutic or professional work to occur;
• an important assessment to be completed;
• or a transition to take place in a developmentally appropriate way.

But the court should understand why the period is required and how it serves welfare.

If an adjournment may be needed, raise it properly and promptly

Do not assume that telling the other party you cannot attend automatically vacates the hearing.

Until the court changes the listing or order, the existing hearing and directions remain.

Explain the evidence, not just the label

If illness is relied upon, explain how it affects the ability to attend, participate, give evidence or prepare.

If disclosure is missing, identify:

• what was ordered;
• when it was ordered;
• who was responsible;
• what steps have been taken;
• what response has been received;
• why the material matters;
• and when it is realistically expected.

Give the court a proposed timetable

If you say the hearing cannot proceed, do not stop there.

Propose:

• what happens to the existing hearing date;
• what directions remain in force;
• which deadlines need changing;
• what the new deadlines should be;
• what interim arrangements should operate;
• how long the relisted hearing will require;
• and any dates of genuine unavailability.

What if the other party agrees?

Agreement between the parties does not necessarily cancel the hearing.

The court controls its own listing and timetable.

A consent position can be put before the court, but the parties should not assume that a listed hearing has been vacated unless the court confirms it.

What if the other party asks for the adjournment?

Respond to the actual procedural question rather than automatically opposing it.

The timetable belongs to the child, not just the litigation

PD12B requires private-law proceedings to be timetabled so that the dispute is resolved as soon as safely possible in the child's interests.

The court and parties should consider the effect of the timetable on the child's welfare and development.

Child-centred dates matter

PD12B specifically identifies matters such as:

• the child's birthday;
• starting nursery or school;
• the beginning or end of a school term or academic year;
• a proposed change of school;
• and significant changes in the child's family or social circumstances.

Contact cases can be particularly time-sensitive

Where a child has stopped seeing a parent, time can materially alter the welfare position.

Delay may:

• weaken familiarity;
• allow anxiety to become entrenched;
• make reintroduction harder;
• affect the child's expectations;
• or turn what began as a temporary arrangement into a long-standing status quo.

Review hearings should have a reason

PD12B specifically cautions against repeatedly adjourning proceedings for reviews of contact, other arrangements or addendum section 7 reports unless the hearing is necessary for a clear purpose consistent with the timetable for the child and the child's best interests.

Non-court dispute resolution

The court can adjourn proceedings where appropriate to allow the parties to attempt non-court dispute resolution.

Where it does so under PD12B, directions should address how and when the parties will tell the court whether issues have been resolved.

This is another example of potentially purposeful delay: the adjournment has a defined objective rather than simply pausing the case.

How to distinguish necessary delay from procedural drift

Cases can become delayed through a series of individually small decisions:

• another four weeks for disclosure;
• another six weeks for an addendum;
• another review hearing;
• another statement;
• another assessment;
• another attempt at contact;
• and another adjournment because the previous direction was not completed.

Each step may appear modest. Together, they can consume a substantial part of a child's life.

Build a delay audit

Do not use an addendum report as an automatic reason to postpone

Before seeking more Cafcass work, identify:

• what has materially changed;
• what question the existing report does not answer;
• why oral clarification would not be enough;
• whether the evidence can be provided another way;
• and whether the likely benefit justifies the additional delay.

Preserve judicial continuity where possible

Adjournment can create additional difficulty if a part-heard or heavily case-managed case returns before a completely different tribunal.

PD12B treats judicial continuity as an objective throughout private-law proceedings, particularly where fact-finding has occurred or later decisions depend on earlier judicial assessments.

Where a hearing is adjourned part-heard before lay justices, PD12B says the resumed hearing should, wherever possible, be before the same justices.

Missed deadlines and sanctions

If a rule, Practice Direction or order specifies a sanction for non-compliance, FPR 4.5 provides that the sanction takes effect unless relief is obtained.

The correct response to a missed deadline is therefore not to assume that an adjournment cures everything.

Identify:

• what was missed;
• whether a sanction applies;
• why the default occurred;
• what has been done to correct it;
• what prejudice has resulted;
• and what application or direction is now required.

Key authorities, official sources and practical preparation

Documents to have ready

1. the latest sealed order;
2. the hearing notice;
3. the immediately previous order if relevant;
4. a chronology of existing adjournments and extensions;
5. evidence explaining the present difficulty;
6. correspondence with any delayed professional or disclosure provider;
7. the outstanding report or disclosure direction;
8. your proposed revised timetable;
9. details of interim child arrangements;
10. and the dates of any significant child-centred events such as school terms, holidays or birthdays.

25 questions to ask

Primary sources and official guidance

1. Children Act 1989 — section 1 — paramountcy, the statutory principle concerning delay and the welfare checklist.
2. Family Procedure Rules — Part 1 — overriding objective, expeditious and fair proceedings and active case management.
3. Family Procedure Rules — Part 4 — extensions of time, adjournments, bringing hearings forward, varying directions and relief from sanctions.
4. Practice Direction 12B — Child Arrangements Programme — safeguarding adjournments, timetable for the child, purposeful review hearings and judicial continuity.
5. Practice Direction 36Z — Child Focused Court / private-law reform framework — relevant where the case is proceeding under the newer investigative model rather than traditional CAP procedure.
6. Family Procedure Rules — Part 18 — procedure for applications made during existing proceedings where applicable.
7. Re R (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 445 — adjournment, fairness, Cafcass evidence and the statutory concern about delay.
8. Re C (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 521 — private-law delay and the concept of planned and purposeful delay.
9. A, B and C (Children: Nesting Arrangement) [2022] EWCA Civ 68 — fairness, interim decision-making and the importance of raising necessary adjournment or evidential issues at the appropriate time.