Material matters arising from the interview should not be with-held
from the parties, so that submissions may be made.
E v E [1986] 1 FLR 610
Where the children have said something to the Judge which the
Judge does not inform the parties about they have no means of dealing with it
themselves. The parties must have the opportunity of dealing with what seems
to be important factors in the Judge’s decision.
Dickenson v Dickenson 1982
Any private conversation between a Judge and a person concerned
with the case which was not disclosed to the parties involved an infraction
of the principle that justice had to be seen to be done. - Retrial before another
Judge.
H v H [1983] 4 FLR 119
The judge has a prima-facie duty to weigh the evidence and make
specific findings of fact rather than rely on an overall impression. The parent’s
evidence had been in conflict on a number of important issues (relationship
between parents and children, father’s caring role, mother’s relationship with
another man) and the judge had failed to make findings of fact on those issues.
Without findings of fact there was no way of knowing if the judge’s impression
was right or wrong - retrial ordered
M v M, (1988) 1 FLR 255
The court has a duty to discharge its discretionary duty judicially.
It cannot be seen to do so if comments are made which might lead one of the
parents to think that he or she had been prejudged before giving evidence.
M v M, (1988) 1 FLR 255
In those cases where the appellant acts in person, counsel or
solicitors for the other side must make available their notes of judgement.
[Practice Note: 1985 -1 All ER 841]
Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977, Rule 130, permits you to: ‘‘Have a search made for, and may inspect and bespeak a copy of, any document lodged in the court office’’.
It is a general principle of English law that no person should be precluded from bringing an action just because he is insolvent or poor. This was upheld in B (infants) 1965. See also RSC Ord 23 r1
David Cannon
First issued January 1989