In the fast-paced, paper-heavy world of family law litigation, deadlines are more than administrative niceties — they are the procedural backbone of fairness. The recent case of AB v CD [2025] EWFC 253 (B) is a textbook example of what happens when parties ignore court directions and then scramble for leniency.
The Issue: Too Late, Too Weak, Too Bad
This was meant to be a straightforward final hearing in financial remedy proceedings — until it wasn’t. The wife (AB) had failed to file her Section 25 witness statement by the deadline ordered by District Judge Malik. Worse, she also failed to apply for permission to rely on a late statement until the hearing had already begun.
District Judge Dodsworth had no difficulty identifying the scale of the non-compliance:
- The witness statements were late.
- The hearing bundle exceeded page limits without permission.
- Position statements were filed far outside the permitted window.
- The excuse for lateness — vague references to difficulties with previous counsel and late disclosure from the husband — was unsupported by any real evidence.
The court noted that the failure was intentional, without any good explanation, and had the effect of prejudicing the husband’s ability to respond. In short: this wasn’t just a delay — it was a breakdown of procedural fairness.
The Rules: No Statement, No Oral Evidence
Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, specifically FPR 22.10, a party who fails to serve a witness statement by the ordered deadline cannot call that witness without the court’s permission. The rule is crystal clear. Permission must be sought — and granted — for late compliance.
Furthermore, FPR 4.5(3) makes clear that even if both parties agree to late service, that doesn’t fix it. The court’s permission is the only way forward.
Applications for relief from sanctions fall under FPR 4.6, which mirrors the well-known Denton test from civil litigation. Courts must consider:
- The seriousness of the breach;
- Why it occurred;
- All the circumstances, including the interests of justice and the need for rules compliance.
In AB v CD, the court found the breach to be serious, the explanation weak, and the resulting prejudice significant. Unsurprisingly, the application failed.
Lessons for Practitioners and Parties Alike
This case is a reminder that:
- Deadlines are not suggestions. Miss them, and you may lose the right to make your case.
- Excuses must be real and supported by evidence. Vague statements in a box on Form D11 won’t cut it.
- Relief from sanctions is not automatic. Judges expect discipline, especially in overburdened family courts.
As District Judge Dodsworth aptly noted, ignoring directions is “effectively a form of cheating” — echoing language from Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30.
Final Word: Fairness Requires Compliance
The Family Court system is under immense pressure, and judicial patience for procedural laxity is wearing thin. If a party wants to be heard, they must take their procedural obligations seriously. AB v CD is a harsh but fair reminder that the cost of default can be silence.
