Disclosure of evidence
11. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
12. In this decision, references to “HMCTS” mean the administrative body responsible for supporting the operation of the courts. References to “the court” mean the court’s judicial function, including judges and magistrates responsible for managing proceedings and making judicial decisions.
13. Family court proceedings are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (The Rules), which set out how family cases should be conducted. The Rules establish the procedural framework for matters such as the filing, service and disclosure of evidence, and the management of hearings.
14. The Rules are supported by Practice Directions, which supplement the Rules by providing practical guidance on their day-to-day operation.
15. Mr R’s complaint concerns the disclosure of evidence during family court proceedings. He says that evidence was relied upon at a hearing on 1 April 2025 that had not been disclosed to him in advance, and that HMCTS should have intervened to ensure that he had received all relevant material.
16. He also raised concerns with HMCTS about the filing of late material ahead of a subsequent hearing and the impact this had on his ability to respond as a litigant in person.
17. Mr R says that because HMCTS did not take steps to ensure evidence was disclosed fully and in a timely manner, he was placed at a disadvantage as a litigant in person, and denied him a fair hearing and effective access to justice.
18. Under the Family Procedure Rules and associated Practice Directions, responsibility for the filing, service and disclosure of evidence rests with the parties to the proceedings. The Rules require parties to disclose and serve documents in accordance with the procedural requirements or any directions made by the court. Mr R says that the other party in this case did not do this.
19. While strongly sympathise with Mr R’s position, where issues arise in errors of procedure, the Rules give the court powers to manage those issues, including through case-management directions and decisions about the use of evidence. The Rules do not place responsibility on HMCTS staff to oversee, verify, or enforce disclosure between parties.
20. HMCTS is responsible for the administration of the courts, which means providing the practical and operational support that enables court proceedings to take place. This includes functions such as listing hearings, processing documents filed with the court, issuing orders made by the court, and managing court records and systems.
21. The judicial function, by contrast, sits with judges and magistrates. This includes decisions about how proceedings are conducted, how hearings are managed, what evidence is relied upon, and how procedural issues such as disclosure, late evidence, or fairness are addressed. These matters involve the exercise of judicial discretion and are decided by the court during proceedings.
22. While HMCTS supports the operation of the court, it does not make decisions about the disclosure of evidence, intervene in disputes between parties about such disclosures, or determine what happens during hearings.
23. As a result, expectations that HMCTS should intervene to ensure disclosure has taken place, assess whether evidence is complete, or take steps to protect a party’s position during a hearing fall outside HMCTS’s administrative responsibilities.
24. Throughout his complaint, Mr R says that HMCTS did not address what he describes as the substance of his concerns. Mr R’s view that HMCTS did not address the substance of his complaint we believe reflects a misunderstanding of HMCTS’s role. While understandable, the issues he raises are judicial rather than administrative, and HMCTS therefore had no responsibility or authority to address them.
25. There is wider background information which I have not set out in detail, as it would not be proportionate to do so and not change our decision. For this reason, we have not looked in detail at what was or was not disclosed in this case, or how, as there are no circumstances under which checking this falls within HMCTS’s remit.
26. By law we cannot look at concerns about the how hearings are conducted or the court’s application of procedural rules. We can only say that concerns about the disclosure of evidence, or lack thereof, are matters that are subject to judicial oversight.
27. While we recognise that court proceedings can be challenging, we have seen no indication that HMCTS acted outside the standards and guidance governing its administrative role and cannot investigate this element of Mr R’s complaint further.
Hearing to set aside non-molestation order
28. Mr R also complains about the way the hearing on 6 May 2025 was listed and conducted. He says that the hearing was listed as an “application hearing”. He says HMCTS should have clarified that it would be procedural only, and that new material was filed shortly before the hearing without HMCTS confirming that he had received it or had time to respond.
29. As explained above, decisions about how a hearing is conducted, including whether an application is dealt with substantively or procedurally, and how late-filed material is handled, are matters for judicial case management.
30. We appreciate that Mr R did not anticipate the hearing being dealt with procedurally, and that this was frustrating. However, decisions about how a hearing will be conducted are matters for the court, and HMCTS does not have a role in advising parties in advance about how a judge will approach an application.
31. HMCTS is required to administer court processes impartially and does not have a role in advising or supporting litigants in person on how proceedings are conducted.
32. For the reasons set out above, we cannot not investigate this complaint further.