High Court Decision in TRC v NS Case Explores Extensions of Time for Appeal and Necessity of Fact-Finding Hearings in Family Law

Citation: [2024] EWHC 80 (Fam)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice Family Division case TRC (Father) v NS (Mother) marked an important decision on various procedural aspects in family law, particularly relating to extensions of time for appeal, the necessity of fact-finding hearings, and how allegations of domestic abuse should be approached. The court grappled with the application of these procedural aspects to the overarching principle of the welfare of the child, as set out in the family law statute.

Key Facts

The case involved disputes over child arrangements following allegations of domestic abuse. Previously, Magistrates had scheduled a fact-finding hearing, later deciding that sufficient evidence was already available to proceed without it. The Mother, represented by Mr Aidan Vine KC, appealed against this decision, which had been made 7 days late. The Father, represented by Mr Michael Gration KC, disputed the need for a fact-finding hearing and supported the Magistrates’ decision. Extensions to appeal time, the necessity of composite hearings, and the relevance of interim contact were subsequently examined.

Several legal principles underpinned the court’s decision:

  1. Extensions of Time for Appeal (FPR r30(4)): The case reiterates that appeals against case management decisions must be made within 7 days, affirming the importance of adhering to procedural time limits for the efficiency and finality of litigation.

  2. Use of Denton v TH White Ltd: Mrs Justice Lieven applied the three-stage Denton test in considering whether to grant an extension of time for the Mother’s appeal, highlighting differences between civil and family cases and acknowledging that flouting time rules is serious but the interests of the child may justify an extension.

  3. Analysis Guided by PD12J and Case Law from K v K and Re H-N: The court examined the necessity of fact-finding hearings within private family law cases, emphasizing that such hearings should only be conducted if they are relevant to the welfare of the child.

  4. Welfare of the Child (CA 1989, s1(1)): The judgment affirmed that all decisions should be made with the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration, taking into account the efficient and expeditious resolution of family cases while ensuring fairness and proportionality.


  1. Extension of Time Granted: Mrs Justice Lieven extended the time for appeal owing to the short period of lateness and the fact that the delay was primarily caused by the legal representatives, not the Mother.

  2. Appeal on Fact-Finding Hearing Dismissed: The court dismissed the Mother’s grounds for appeal relating to the necessity of a fact-finding hearing, stating the Magistrates had ample evidence from the parents’ interactions to proceed directly to welfare determinations. The court noted the discretion Magistrates have in managing cases and determining the need for such hearings.

  3. Contact Supervision Unchanged: The court declined to alter interim contact arrangements, reflecting a preference for stability in the children’s interactions with the Father, and deemed heavy-handed supervision inappropriate.


In TRC (Father) v NS (Mother), the High Court navigated the intricate balance between procedural discipline and the welfare-centric focus of family law. The case underscored the authority of courts to eschew a dedicated fact-finding hearing where adequate evidence is presented to address children’s welfare needs directly. The judgment is a testament to the courts’ responsibility to manage proceedings efficiently, sensibly exercising discretion when procedural rules affect substantive family justice. The decision has reinforced the court’s discretion in handling evidence concerning domestic abuse, adopting a holistic approach keyed to the children’s best interests.

Related Summaries