Dragutin Popovic, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1875 (Admin)
XYM, R (on the application of) v Kingston Family Court & Anor
17 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
High Court
A father challenged three Family Court decisions. The High Court refused to overturn them, saying the father hadn't shown any serious mistakes by the judges. The High Court also said it wasn't the place to complain about problems with the family court system generally.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review application concerning three Family Court orders: DDJ Waschkuhn (20 April 2022), DJ Saunders (11 May 2022), and DJ Armstrong (6 July 2022).
- •Claimant (XYM) sought permission to appeal these orders, refused by HHJ Willans (7 September 2022).
- •Claimant's subsequent judicial review application was refused by DHCJ Padley (18 May 2023).
- •Claimant's renewed application for judicial review was heard by Fordham J on 17 September 2024.
- •Proceedings involved Children Act 1989 and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 matters.
- •Anonymity order in place protecting the identities of the Claimant, Interested Party (XTZ), and their children.
Legal Principles
Judicial review of a refusal of permission to appeal is a 'safety net', with limited scope, particularly when appeal rights within the family court process have been exhausted.
Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin) and Cart v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663
Judicial review is not a means to re-argue the merits of Family Court decisions; it addresses errors of law, unreasonableness, or procedural unfairness.
Implicit in the judgment
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review is limited in cases where the statutory scheme and rules deliberately give no right of further appeal.
Implicit in the judgment, referencing Sivasubramaniam and Cart
Article 6 ECHR requires courts to give reasons addressing material arguments.
Mentioned by the Claimant and addressed by the Judge
Outcomes
Renewed application for permission for judicial review refused.
The judge found no viable grounds for judicial review, identifying no arguable error of law, unreasonableness, or procedural unfairness in Judge Willans's decision. The Claimant's arguments were deemed fact-specific and already addressed by Judge Willans. Systemic criticisms of the family court system were also rejected.