SW & TW (Children : Human Rights Claim: Procedure) (Rev 1)

These proceedings concern two siblings: SW, a boy who is soon to be 14 years old and his sister, TW, who is 9. They are at the centre of four related applications before the court. Specifically:

This judgment is delivered at what was to be the conclusion of the final hearing of these applications. Regrettably, I have not been able to conclude the proceedings by which the children seek relief under the HRA 1998 ([1](iii) above), given what is now acknowledged to be a fundamental procedural defect with their claim. That said, I consider it important to deliver this judgment on the matters on which I am able to reach a conclusion, and on which I have reached a clear view at this point.

In order to set a context for what follows, I consider that it may be helpful if I identify at the outset of this judgment some essential procedural points about claims of this kind. This is a case which in some respects has veered ‘off the rails’; in material respects it was never ‘on the rails’ in the first place. In doing so, I build on what I had said in CZ v Kirklees Council (“CZ v Kirklees”) [2017] EWFC 11 at [9]:

In relation to these claims, I have further seen the guidance offered by Keehan J in H v Northamptonshire at [117] and respectfully agree with it.

By this judgment:

For the purposes of this judgment, it is necessary only to give the briefest of outline histories.

SW and TW are the two children of PW (father) and RT (the mother); the parents were never married. Following parental separation in 2012, there followed highly contested private law proceedings concerning arrangements for the children.

Following those proceedings, in September 2013, the mother made a range of serious allegations about the father’s conduct towards TW. These were referred to a social worker from Luton Borough Council, and investigated by her, though in the opinion of the father wholly inadequately. Contact was suspended between the father and the children. This suspension, and hiatus in the relationship of the father and the children, continued for 2 years (through to September 2015), in circumstances which have feature centrally in the HRA 1998 claims.

In September 2014, the mother reported that the children had made allegations about the father’s conduct towards them (he had not seen them for a year by now); the mother contended that both children had been sexually abused by the father. These allegations were investigated by the social services department using their investigative powers under section 47 CA 1989; the children were interviewed in accordance with the Achieving Best Evidence Guidance. The father was arrested and bailed while the police conducted a parallel investigation. The social worker reported the inherent improbability of the allegations, and acknowledged the risk that the children had been coached to make false allegations.

In November 2014, the children’s schools reported heightened concerns about neglect of the children by their mother, further extreme allegations being made by the children, and of the mother’s mental health. Later that month, SW and TW underwent full medical examinations in the investigation of sexual abuse. The mother had pressed for these examinations; the Local Authority and the police had ultimately supported them taking place, and a social worker was in attendance with the mother. It is now accepted by the local authority that these examinations were not necessary, they were disproportionately intrusive; the authority accepts that it failed to protect the children from this invasion of the children’s privacy. In December 2014 at a child protection conference, recommendations were made that there should be "formal investigations into the allegations” which had been made by the mother; these investigations were to be carried out by the police and children’s services. At no stage did the decision-making at this conference, or generally, include the father. At no time was he consulted about the investigation into the complaints, and was given no opportunity to contribute to the investigation or the decisions.

Although a “formal investigation” had been commissioned by the conference in December 2014 (see [10] above), there is no evidence that there was any formal planning of such an investigation, nor is there evidence of any coherent strategy for protecting the children; indeed, no real investigation took place at all. That said, in April 2015, TW underwent a further medical examination at the insistence of the mother, this time under general anaesthetic. The Local Authority now accepts that it should have taken steps to prevent the mother from presenting TW for further medical examination, particularly as the November 2014 examination had revealed no diagnostic signs of abuse. It is now acknowledged that the children’s mother was, by her actions, causing the children significant harm. The Local Authority accepts that each medical examination of the children was a serious invasion of the rights of each to respect for their privacy and unjustified.

At the next child protection review, in February 2015, the child protection plan was discharged and replaced with a Child in the Need plan without any exploration of why the earlier plan had not been implemented.

In July 2015, RT, the children’s mother suddenly and unexpectedly died. The children moved initially to live with MT, their maternal grandmother, where they remained for a few months. No one in the Local Authority’s social work department took steps to notify the father of this important event in the children’s lives, though inevitably – albeit after a delay – he discovered from another third party. In August 2015, MT issued proceedings under the CA 1989 for a child arrangements order; the father made a cross-application. Within those private law proceedings, a section 37 report was ordered. Social work and other expert opinion garnered in the case was to the effect that the children were being exposed to further harm in the care of the maternal grandmother who was expressing implacably hostile views about the father and was opposed to the father playing a role in the children’s lives, a stance which she was unable or unwilling to shield from the children. In late-September 2015, the Local Authority finally issued public law proceedings; these proceedings have been concluded at this hearing. In early 2016, the children were placed with a paternal uncle, before ultimately moving to live with the father himself.

Within the litigation, expert assessments have been ordered, and detailed and lengthy reports filed; an independent social worker has worked the case in view of the father’s understandable dissatisfaction with the work conducted by the Local Authority’s social work department.

As is apparent from the history outlined, the case has regrettably taken far longer than the 26 weeks expected by statute (section 32(1)(a) CA 1989) to reach its conclusion; this was in part purposeful to allow for detailed and extended assessment of the family as recommended by the jointly instructed expert. The delay has also at least in part been contributed to by the wholly unavoidable break in judicial continuity.

I strongly suspect that the automatic coupling of the CA 1989 and HRA 1998 claims has been an additional and significant factor in the delay in resolving the CA 1989 aspect of the case; while it is important that due respect is paid to the guidance in Re L, the relief sought in the HRA 1998 application did not bear to any material extent on the relief being claimed by any party in the CA 1989 proceedings. I note that previous case management orders had referred to the issue of uncoupling the applications, but nothing was done about it. In my judgment, had more careful consideration been given to this, the prospect of a 10-day listing would never have been contemplated, and the attendant wait for an available slot of this length in the Court diary avoided.

The children have been living with their father now for the last year. They have settled well with him, and they are said to be thriving; both are making good academic progress. The Local Authority has made it clear at this hearing that it does not seek a Part IV CA 1989 order in relation to the children. As it happens, the children and father actually now live in the geographic area of another authority; that other authority has also made it clear that it will support the father if required, but does not seek a statutory order or designation of the same. It is agreed that a private law order should be made that the children live with their father, and given the disruption which they have experienced in their short lives, I am satisfied that it is better to make that order than to make no order (section 1(5) CA 1989).

The father and maternal grandmother, both ably represented before me, have over the last few weeks, engaged in constructive dialogue about the children’s futures which has resulted in an agreement for her contact with the children; the Guardian has expressed her support for the arrangement and I am happy to endorse it. The details will be spelled out in the order, but the essential framework is:

Therefore, against a very bleak and oppositional picture painted when the applications were first issued, particularly against the tragic background of the death of the children’s mother, the CA 1989 proceedings have now been resolved with considerable consensus, and the minimum of judicial intervention.

Section 7 of the HRA 1998 provides as follows:

Section 7(9) of the HRA 1998 makes provision for the Lord Chancellor (Secretary of State for Justice) to make procedural rules to support the primary legislation (see also section 20 HRA 1998 which provide for these to be made by statutory instrument). At the outset of the final hearing, there was division at the Bar as to whether the claim under the HRA 1998 is governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) or the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998). This is relevant to the following issues:

I suggested in CZ v Kirklees (although I had not heard argument on the point) that a claim under the HRA 1998 is governed by the CPR 1998 (see [61]). In H v Northamptonshire CC (a judgment which was coincidentally handed down on the day after CZ v Kirklees) Keehan J appears to have taken the same view. However, in this case, Mr. Bagchi QC and Mr. McIlwain for the father, making common cause with Ms. Grief QC and Mr. Edwards for the children, initially argued that a HRA 1998 claim brought within care proceedings was governed by the FPR 2010. Their argument was presented on the following basis:

Mr. McCarthy QC (who has been recently instructed in the case) and Ms. Savage for the Local Authority contended that the CPR 1998 apply. They argued that HRA 1998 proceedings are proceedings included within the genus of “civil rights and obligations” (see the opening words of Article 6(1) ECHR). The whole of the framework of the HRA 1998 supports this view, they argued; it follows, they further contended, that the only option is that they are civil proceedings. This construction gives the court the broadest range of options as to what order it should make in the event that it finds a breach of Convention rights.

By the conclusion of the exchanges in oral argument, Mr. Bagchi QC and Mr. Tughan QC who had stepped in to represent the children in circumstances I allude to below (see [37]), conceded that the relevant procedure rules for determination of a HRA 1998 application even in these circumstances were probably the CPR 1998.

Having now heard argument on this point, I feel able to affirm the conclusion which I had reached and expressed in CZ v Kirklees, that the HRA 1998 claim is governed by the CPR 2010. My reasoning is as follows:

I note that Keehan J in H v Northamptonshire also contemplated that the CPR 1998 apply to these cases (see [117](c) and (d) for example).

I do not believe that Munby J intended his comments in Re L (Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claims) [2003] EWHC 665 (Fam) [2003] 2 FLR 160 to have the effect of substituting a different regime of procedural rules, as contended for in this case. Re L was a case in which a mother sought an order that the local authority should be compelled to change its care plan, on the basis that the plan before the court (for adoption) was unlawful and violated her ECHR rights. Munby J referred at [25] of Re L (see below) to the appropriateness of the court, while exercising its CA 1989 jurisdiction, being in a position to offer an “appropriate remedy within the care proceedings themselves” under section 7(1)(b); I particularly draw attention to the following paragraphs:

“[21] Quite apart from the freestanding jurisdiction under s 7(1)(a), rights arising under the European Convention can also be relied on under s 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, by way of defence or otherwise, ‘in any legal proceedings'. That, in my judgment, must extend to cases – such as care cases – proceeding in the FPC. …

[23]   There is, however, in my judgment, … an important distinction to be drawn between: (a) those cases in which a European Convention issue arises whilst care proceedings are still on foot; and (b) those cases in which a European Convention issue arises after a final care order has been made and when the care proceedings have accordingly come to an end.

[24]   In the latter class of case – that is, where the care proceedings have come to an end – the appropriate remedy may well be a freestanding application under s 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Such an application can be made either on its own or in conjunction with some other application, for example (as in Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) [2001] 2 FLR 1300, C v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 868 and Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 an application under s 39 of the Children Act 1989 for discharge of the care order. In such a case, as the President emphasised in C v Bury, the application should be heard in the Family Division and, if possible, by a judge with experience of sitting in the Administrative Court. C v Bury, it should be noted, was a case where the care proceedings had come to an end.

[25]   In the other class of case – that is, where the care proceedings are still on foot – the position, in my judgment, is quite different. Here there is no need for any freestanding application under s 7(1)(a). Section 7(1)(b) will provide an appropriate remedy within the care proceedings themselves. Accordingly, Human Rights Act complaints arising before the making of a final care order can, and in my judgment normally should, be dealt with within the context of the care proceedings and by the court which is dealing with the care proceedings. I might point out that Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] EWHC 1379 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 730 is an example, albeit in the Family Division, showing just that procedure being adopted. In that case, the mother's complaints of numerous breaches of Art 8 were litigated within the care proceedings and without any separate application being issued under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

Munby J in the passage underlined above ([2003] EWHC 665 (Fam) [2003] 2 FLR 160 [25]) advises that a HRA 1998 claim arising in the context of ongoing family proceedings can and should ordinarily be dealt with “by the court” dealing with the care proceedings and “within the context” of those proceedings. This is apposite where the relief to be awarded under section 8HRA 1998 coincides in large measure with the relief or orders which the court may wish to make in the CA 1989 proceedings. But where declarations of unlawfulness and damages are sought which do not have an impact on the outcome of the CA 1989 proceedings, there is much less justification for uniting them. There is a real risk that in doing so, the CA 1989 proceedings become bogged down. A HRA 1998 claim should never be permitted (as it has in this case, I believe) to prolong the CA 1989 litigation.

Keehan J analyses Re L in H v Northamptonshire at [115] in a way with which I entirely associate myself, thus:

“I respectfully agree with Munby J's general proposition that a court hearing public law proceedings should deal with any associated HRA claim brought by one of the parties to the care proceedings. His concern was to prevent the proliferation of satellite litigation in respect of HRA claims. The judgment should not be read, and was plainly not intended to be read, as requiring a party seeking HRA damages to issue his or her claim within the existing public law care proceedings. On this basis the decision in Re L, and the decision in Re V, may be distinguished from proceedings in which a HRA claim is pursued and damages are sought. Therefore, where the remedy sought in the HRA claim is not limited to injunctive or declaratory relief but includes a claim for damages, it is almost inevitable that those representing the Claimant will be well advised to issue separate proceedings and to seek the issue of a separate public funding certificate because of the potential applicability of the statutory charge in respect of any HRA damages awarded” (emphasis by underlining added).

Having concluded that the CPR 1998 apply to this type of application, it is necessary to assess the implications for this case.

The Children’s Guardian, Ms. O, was appointed to represent the children in the Part IVCA 1989 proceedings in September 2015 in accordance with the provisions of section 41 CA 1989 and rule 16.3 FPR 2010. Her appointment was in conventional terms “for the purposes of [the] specified proceedings” (section 41). That appointment was not, and is not, for representation of the children in civil or other (including HRA 1998) proceedings.

Regrettably, Ms. O assumed the role of litigation friend in the HRA 1998 proceedings without – as I understand it – explicit authority from Cafcass for her to act under Part 21, or proper consideration of the children’s true status in these civil proceedings; I have been advised (though have seen no formal confirmation of this) that Cafcass had originally agreed (or it was thought that Cafcass had agreed) that the Children’s Guardian could “front” the HRA 1998 proceedings on behalf of the children, though this agreement may have been given without any real thought as to the technicalities; it was on this basis that the Guardian and her legal team operated. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that many Children’s Guardians in CA 1989 proceedings, and their legal teams, may have strayed into roles in HRA 1998 proceedings for which they have no formal status under the rules. The fact is that Ms. O could not be appointed as litigation friend, as she and her legal team had thought, under rule 16.5 FPR 2010 (“requirement for a litigation friend”) given that, as I have made clear above, the FPR 2010 do not apply to the HRA 1998 claim at all. It is necessary for the children’s status as litigants in the HRA 1998 proceedings to be provided for under the CPR 1998, namely Part 21. This defect was only exposed on the first day of the hearing.

Part 21 of the CPR 1998 sets out the “special provisions” which apply in relation to civil proceedings involving children and protected parties; it specifically provides that a child “must” have a litigation friend (rule 21.2(2) CPR 1998), unless the court (in defined circumstances, not relevant here) orders otherwise (rule 21.2(3) CPR 1998). The rules are clear that it is essential that the formalities are observed from the very earliest stage, as (per rule 21.3 CPR 1998) no step can or should be taken in the proceedings until the child has a litigation friend appointed in accordance with rule 21.6. A person may act as a litigation friend without court order provided that he/she can fulfil certain requirements, including the offering of an undertaking to pay any costs which the child may be ordered to pay in relation to the proceedings (rule 21.4(3)(c)). The Local Authority made a formal offer not to seek costs against the children here, but this was not of itself sufficient to overcome other insuperable obstacles to the appointment of Ms. O as litigation friend.

Contrary to the impression which the Children’s Guardian appears to have received in this case, Cafcass is clear that it cannot, and will not, permit its own officers (children’s guardians) to become litigation friends in HRA 1998 proceedings. In a helpful e-mail communication from Ms. Melanie Carew (Head of Legal, Cafcass) sent to the parties when this problem came to light on the first day of the hearing (1 March) she said that:

“… the legal advice given to Cafcass is that it is outside its statutory functions to act outside of family proceedings… A Cafcass officer acting in a professional capacity would therefore be acting ultra vires if they were acting as a litigation friend in civil proceedings”.

That advice is more fully laid out and explained in a document, publicly available, entitled “Guidance – the role of Cafcass in Human Rights Claims” (April 2016) which was considered at this hearing by the parties and the court. This document emphasises that the statutory functions of Cafcass (i.e. those covered by section 12 of the CJCSA 2000) are confined to enabling Cafcass to act on behalf of a child in any “family proceedings” in which “the welfare of children … is or may be in question”. Quite apart from the fact that a HRA 1998 application is not ‘family proceedings’ (see above), Cafcass takes the view that a claim brought under the HRA 1998 is not one in which the court is being asked to consider issues of welfare; a HRA 1998 claim is concerned with declarations (and/or awards of damages) on the basis that a public authority has acted unlawfully in the exercise of their powers. The Guidance document goes on:

“Cafcass cannot act as Litigation Friend in proceedings in which the welfare of the child is not in question, although it is within the scope of the guardian’s role to advise on pursuing a claim and if this is not resolved without making an application it must be the Official Solicitor (if there is no alternative) who should act for the child”.

Interestingly, although section 15 of the CJCSA 2000, permits Cafcass to authorise “an officer of the Service” to “conduct litigation” in relation to “any proceedings” in “any court”, this can only be done “in the exercise of his functions” (i.e. as defined in sections 12-14) and do not capture this type of claim.

This approach is not entirely new or unexpected. It was foreshadowed some time ago in C v Bury Metropolitan BC [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam) [2002] 2 FLR 868 at [2] by the then President of the Family Division (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P):

“There is a jurisdictional difficulty for the guardian in making the human rights application for K, in that such an application does not appear to come within the duties of a guardian.” (emphasis added)

Once it became apparent that the HRA 1998 claim on behalf of the children had been conducted on a procedurally defective basis (namely with the Children’s Guardian appointed within the Part IV proceedings purporting to be a Part 21 litigation friend), Ms Grief QC and Mr. Edwards, who had been advising and representing the guardian throughout, withdrew from the case, and Mr. Tughan QC appeared on the next hearing date, pro bono, on behalf of the children to try to salvage the application, and steer it in the direction of a satisfactory conclusion. In spite of his best efforts, I considered that I could not take any further step in the case without the children being properly represented by a litigation friend other than a Cafcass guardian, and in spite of a helpful suggestion that I could appoint a panel solicitor local to the children (who had indicated his willingness so to act), I felt it right to issue an invitation to the Official Solicitor (who had been forewarned) to be litigation friend the children in this case pursuant to Part 21.6. I did so primarily because it seemed to me that not only would the Official Solicitor be able to assist these young people in this litigation, but it would also give him the opportunity to address – if so advised – some of the issues which have arisen in this case, in an attempt to ensure that the problems are not repeated.

This procedural difficulty has delayed the conclusion of the proceedings, a frustration aggravated by the fact that the Children’s Guardian and legal team appointed in the CA 1989 proceedings had bona fide (albeit without proper authority under the rules) purported to agree with the Local Authority the quantum of damages in the HRA 1998 proceedings, and this awaits my approval. There is also agreement as to the issue of inter partes costs.

I am hopeful that at that next hearing, subject to the arguments then advanced, I will be able to regularise the defects in the steps taken in the proceedings thus far. Part 21.3(4) CPR 1998 provides that:

“"Any step taken before a child or patient has a litigation friend shall be of no effect, unless the court otherwise orders." (emphasis added).

Given the large measure of apparent agreement as to substantive outcome for the children in this case, it is surely right that I should endeavour to salvage the proposed settlement in order to save the considerable expense of a rerun of the proceedings, provided only that this can be done “justly” (Part 1 CPR 1998), and that such an outcome is supported by the children’s yet-to-be appointed litigation friend. Such an approach was recognised in Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co. [2002] EWCA Civ 1889, [2003] 1 WLR 1511, in which the Court of Appeal (Kennedy LJ giving the lead judgment) noted that rule 21.3(4) is capable of delivering a solution to a problem similar to that which arises here:

“… a court can regularise the position retrospectively, and that was also possible under the Rules of the Supreme Court (see Kirby v Leather [1965] 2 QB 367). Provided everyone has acted in good faith and there has been no manifest disadvantage to the party subsequently found to have been a patient at the relevant time I cannot envisage any court refusing to regularise the position. To do otherwise would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, but in any given case the ultimate decision must depend on the particular facts … finality in litigation is also important, and the Rules as to capacity are not designed to provide a vehicle for re-opening litigation which having apparently been properly conducted (whatever the wisdom of the individual decisions in relation to it) has for long been understood to be at an end”.

I will receive further submissions on this aspect at a hearing which I have listed for five weeks’ hence. It is at least possible that any award of damages which I make will be swallowed up by the statutory charge, but (whether this is so or not) it is important that the children receive a fair and properly considered determination of their legitimate claim. In all the circumstances, I have invited Cafcass and the Legal Aid Agency to make representations at that hearing, if either choose to do so.

The father seeks declarations and damages under the HRA 1998. The Local Authority has formally apologised to the father. It conceded that he was entitled to a number of declarations some months ago (September 2016); the father had hoped to achieve wider formal recognition of the ways in which he considers the Local Authority infringed his rights. However, the parties have come to an agreement that the following declarations sufficiently record the failures of the Local Authority to observe and/or respect to the ECHR rights of the father:

On the issue of damages, in September 2016, the father’s then-instructed counsel filed a lengthy skeleton argument setting out the father’s aspiration to recover from the Local Authority damages in the region of £100,000-£140,000, or more. These figures were advanced on the basis of admitted (and further) breaches of Article 6 and 8 ECHR, and of an alleged breach, subsequently added but no longer pursued, of the father’s rights under Article 3 ibid. (i.e. prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment). It is unfortunate that at the stage at which the father’s ambitious objective was made known to the parties and the court, there was no meaningful opportunity for some careful judicial investigation of the merits of such an exceptional claim, and/or for some steps to be taken to moderate or even judicially mediate the claim, in fulfilment of the ‘overriding objective’ (note in particular rule 1.1(2) and 1.4(2) CPR 1998). Some of that award was intended to reflect an element of recovery of costs disguised as damages; as I indicated in CZ v Kirklees,that is an unprincipled approach (see [2017] EWFC 11 at [58(iv)]). However, positive steps were then taken towards settlement of the claim in November 2016 following the Part 36 offer, and the Article 3 point was withdrawn; in the event, the father’s claim has now been appropriately settled in my judgment at a realistic and proportionate level, for a fraction of the earlier pleaded sums. An unwarranted cost to the public purse of an expensive trial has, in the main, mercifully but narrowly been avoided.

The parties have agreed that an award of damages to the father in the sum of £15,000 would represent “just satisfaction” under section 8(3) HRA 1998 for the infringements of his ECHR rights. I agree with them. It should be noted that this is an agreed compromise figure, and as such it may be said to have limited precedential value.

In its Part 36 letter, the Local Authority offered to pay the father’s costs of the HRA 1998 claim; the father did not accept that offer within the allotted time. Both parties submitted detailed argument on costs at this hearing, ranging across the full gamut of issues – of principle, quantum, the Part 36 process (including the fact that the Part 36 offer was in respect of only part of the claim), litigation conduct generally (both sides), the complication of apportionment where the lawyers have been paid on an ‘events’ basis (i.e. by which fixed fees are paid on the happening of certain ‘events’ in the litigation), non-compliance with orders for the delivery of costs schedules, and the period for which costs would potentially be recoverable. Overshadowing those arguments was the identifiable likelihood that the Legal Aid Agency will successfully recoup from the award of damages the sums which it has expended on the father’s public funding certificate for the CA 1989 and/or the HRA 1989 proceedings. On the second day of the hearing, the Local Authority proposed a pragmatic solution, which was that the Local Authority would contribute the sum of £1,000 towards the father’s HRA 1998 costs; Mr. Bagchi QC did not argue vigorously against that proposal. Given that the father is unlikely to benefit either from the damages or the costs, I am persuaded that a very considerable amount of costs would be saved by not spending more court time with the parties debating the issue and I am content to adopt the pragmatic course proposed. I formally assess the costs award in the sum of £1,000.

I made the point in CZ v Kirklees at [9] that in cases of this kind:

“… a careful and realistic eye has to be kept on proportionality of the process by which relief is sought, and on outcome.”

As I alluded to above, I am concerned that a realistic eye was not maintained on the proportionality of the claim or its process throughout this litigation. At the hearing before me, I am satisfied that the advocates took a realistic, economical and proportionate stance in relation to the outcome, with the consequence that the case has been completed in three days, with a considerable saving of additional cost.

The case will now be adjourned for resolution of the children’s HRA 1998 claims on an agreed date in April.

That is my judgment.