Submission of evidence
20. 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.
21. 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 responsible for managing proceedings and making judicial decisions.
22. 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.
23. The Rules are supported by Practice Directions, which supplement the Rules by providing practical guidance on their day-to-day operation.
24. Mr R says that on 7 October 2024 HMCTS instructed him to send defence documents to the HMCTS bulk scanning centre in Harlow for a hearing listed on 8 October 2024. He says this instruction was given at such short notice that it was impossible for him to comply with it. Mr R says that as a result he was unable to submit evidence he wished the court to consider, which in turn affected the fairness of the proceedings.
25. In its responses to his complaint, HMCTS says Mr R had already been told on 6 September 2024 that any documents he wanted the court to consider should be sent to the HMCTS bulk scanning centre in Harlow. It says the court bundle ordered by the judge for the hearing had already been filed and received by the court on 3 October 2024.
26. HMCTS says Mr R submitted a defence bundle on 5 October 2024. The correspondence also shows Mr R contacted the court on 6 and 7 October 2024 asking how to submit documents he wished the court to consider.
27. In his email of Sunday 6 October 2024 Mr R attached documents he wished to rely on explaining that he felt these had been omitted from the trial bundle, but he did not indicate that the matter was urgent or that a hearing was imminent. HMCTS responded by advising that documents should be submitted to the bulk scanning facility in line with its standard process.
28. On 7 October 2024, the day before the hearing, Mr R sent a further email in which he explained that he is dyslexic and asked how to proceed at short notice. This was sent shortly before the hearing on 8 October. HMCTS replied on 11 October 2024 - after the hearing - explaining that documents can be submitted by email in urgent situations.
29. Under the Family Procedure Rules, responsibility for preparing and filing evidence rests with the parties to the proceedings. The Rules also give the court powers to manage how evidence is used during proceedings, including decisions about whether further material may be introduced at a late stage.
30. We understand why Mr R considered the instruction given on 7 October created a short time frame. However, the date of the hearing had already been fixed by the court. The short period between the preparation of the hearing bundle and the hearing itself arises from the procedural timetable of the case rather than a specific deadline imposed by HMCTS.
31. The purpose of filing documents in advance of a hearing is to allow a bundle to be prepared so that the judge and the parties know what material will be considered at the hearing.
32. While Mr R has framed his complaint as being about a short deadline imposed by HMCTS, the information available suggests the underlying issue was that the hearing bundle had already been prepared by the applicant and was not agreed between the parties.
33. Mr R has explained that he considered the bundle to be incomplete and that it excluded documents he wished to rely on. The correspondence shows that he raised this with both the applicant and the court shortly before the final hearing and indicated he intended to bring additional material to the hearing.
34. Under the Family Procedure Rules and associated Practice Directions, parties are expected to cooperate in the preparation of a hearing bundle and, where possible, to agree its contents.
35. While these directions encourage parties to agree the contents of a bundle where possible, disagreements between parties about evidence are common in contested proceedings. Where parties cannot agree what material should be included, it is for the judge to determine how the hearing will proceed and what evidence will be considered. This falls under the judicial function of the court, not the administrative function of HMCTS.
36. If a party wishes to introduce further documents shortly before or during a hearing, the question of whether those documents should be accepted is a matter for the judge managing the proceedings. HMCTS does not make decisions about whether additional evidence should be admitted.
37. HMCTS’s role in this process is administrative, for example facilitating the filing and processing of documents. It does not have a role in resolving disputes between parties about the contents of a bundle or in deciding what evidence should be included. Those matters fall within the court’s judicial function.
38. We understand why Mr R considers the timing to be unfair. However, the timing issues he describes arise from the existence of an unagreed bundle shortly before the final hearing, rather than from a separate or unreasonable deadline imposed by HMCTS.
39. Mr R has also said that after the hearing HMCTS informed him that documents could have been sent to the court by email. We have seen the correspondence in which this was explained. We understand why Mr R feels this caused him to lose the opportunity to submit evidence he considered vital.
40. However, Mr R’s request to submit additional documents was made very shortly before the final hearing, after the bundle had already been prepared. Had those documents been sent to the court, it would still have been for the judge to decide whether they should be admitted and considered as part of the proceedings.
41. We understand why Mr R believes that the outcome of the proceedings might have been different if the additional information he refers to had been considered by the court. We also recognise that the impact he describes as a result of the proceedings is very serious and we do not wish to diminish this.
42. Although we can appreciate why he holds this view, this is not something we can take a view on. Decisions about what evidence is admitted and the weight given to it are matters for the judge as part of the court’s judicial function. These are not matters HMCTS is responsible for and we cannot speculate about how the judge might have considered any additional documents or if these would have changed the outcome of the hearing.
43. The correspondence also indicates that the instruction to submit documents to the HMCTS bulk scanning centre in Harlow was outlining HMCTS’s standard process. We have considered the timing of these emails. While we recognise he was seeking clarification shortly before the hearing, HMCTS handles a high volume of correspondence and there is no expectation of an immediate response.
44. Mr R’s email explicitly seeking clarification on how to proceed at short notice was sent the day before the final hearing. HMCTS replied four working days later.
45. Although HMCTS replied after the hearing, in our view, a response within a few working days is not, in itself, indicative of any failing. In any event, earlier clarification would not have determined whether the additional material could be admitted, which was a matter for the court.
46. Taking all of the available information into account, while we sympathise with Mr R’s position, in our view this is not a situation where HMCTS imposed an unreasonably short deadline. The timing issues Mr R described arose because additional documents were being submitted shortly before the final hearing, after the hearing bundle had been prepared.
47. In contested court proceedings, disagreements about the contents of a bundle are not unusual, and where agreement cannot be reached it is for the court to determine how the hearing will proceed and what material will be considered.
48. Mr R has also provided copies of the documents he says he wished to rely on, including expert evidence and financial material relating to the value and income-generating capacity of his work. We recognise that Mr R considers this material to be central to the outcome of the proceedings, but we cannot speculate on whether the outcome would have been different had the bundle included that material.
49. Court proceedings are, by their nature, adversarial and involve disagreement between the parties about the evidence and outcome. The fact that a party is unable to place all the material they would like before the court, or receives an outcome they consider to be unfavourable, does not in itself indicate that there has been maladministration by HMCTS.
50. Court hearings provide parties with an opportunity to present their case in person and respond to the issues in dispute. The judge is responsible for managing the hearing and determining what evidence is admitted and the weight given to both oral and written material.
51. We recognise the significant impact Mr R has described. However, the impact of court proceedings often arises from the underlying dispute between the parties, as well as from the outcome reached by the court. In this case, we are unable to attribute that impact to a failing by HMCTS.
52. Although we sympathise with Mr R, we have not found any indication that HMCTS failed to act in line with its administrative duties in this case. For this reason, we cannot take further action in this element of his complaint.
Reasonable adjustments
53. Mr R also complains that, as a litigant in person with dyslexia, HMCTS failed to ensure that court processes were fair or that appropriate support or adjustments were in place for him.
54. Mr R has a documented diagnosis of moderate to severe dyslexia. He says the court failed to make reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia and this affected his ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.
55. He explained that, as a litigant in person, he was not aware of any formal process for notifying the court or requesting adjustments. We recognise that navigating court procedures without legal support can be difficult.
56. There is no doubt that Mr R has dyslexia. Our role is not to determine if Mr R was entitled to a specific adjustment, but to consider whether HMCTS acted reasonably and in line with the rules and guidance that inform its work.
57. Under sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage by the way a service is delivered. The duty is concerned with how a service is provided, rather than with guaranteeing a particular outcome.
58. That said, disclosing a disability is not necessarily the same as requesting a reasonable adjustment. While such information may provide relevant context, adjustments are intended to address identified barriers, and it is for the individual to indicate what support they require.
59. In its guidance on reasonable adjustments, HMCTS explains that “Disabilities affect people differently so we won’t always know what will help”, and individuals should “explain how your disability affects you and give as much information as you can” so that appropriate support can be considered and agreed.
60. The information Mr R provided indicates that he first informed the court that he has dyslexia on 5 October 2024, shortly before the final hearing on 8 October 2024. We asked whether he had raised this at any earlier stage and whether he requested any specific adjustments.
61. While we accept that Mr R did notify the court of his dyslexia, we have not seen evidence that he made a clear request for a specific adjustment.
62. We have also considered the email Mr R sent to the court on 7 October 2024, in which he explained that he is dyslexic and asked how he should proceed at short notice. We recognise that he was seeking assistance in difficult circumstances.
63. However, this email was sent the day before the final hearing and did not set out a specific request for a reasonable adjustment in how HMCTS delivered its administrative service. Rather, it raised concerns about the contents of the bundle and sought general guidance, rather than identifying a specific barrier arising from his disability or requesting a defined adjustment.
64. All of the events described took place within a very limited time frame immediately before the final hearing. That compressed time frame arose from the listing of the hearing itself, rather than from any separate deadline imposed by HMCTS.
65. In those circumstances, in our view it would not have been reasonable to expect HMCTS to take steps that alter the preparation of the case or the contents of the bundle. Decisions about how to address late evidence or concerns about the bundle fall within the court’s judicial function rather than HMCTS’s administrative role.
66. We also note that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is, by its nature, limited to steps that are reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. This includes consideration of the information available to the organisation at the time and the opportunity it has to respond. In this case, the matters raised occurred very shortly before the final hearing, which limited what could reasonably have been done by HMCTS within its administrative role.
67. Mr R has also referred to his application for a McKenzie Friend as part of the support he sought. The evidence indicates that this request was accepted and that he was supported by a McKenzie friend at the final hearing.
68. A McKenzie friend is a form of assistance that a party, usually a litigant in person, may request in court proceedings, and it is for the judge to decide whether such support is permitted as part of the court’s judicial function.
69. The role of a McKenzie Friend arises from the case of McKenzie v McKenzie (1970). It is not a reasonable adjustment within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010
70. While Mr R has explained that his request for a McKenzie Friend was connected to his dyslexia, this does not amount to a request for a reasonable adjustment in how HMCTS delivered its administrative service, and we would not expect HMCTS to infer a specific adjustment from this without a clear request.
71. While we recognise that acting as a litigant in person can make it more difficult to navigate court procedures, this does not in itself place HMCTS under a duty to manage a party’s case or to ensure that proceedings are conducted to a particular standard of fairness.
72. HMCTS’s role is limited to providing administrative support to the court, and it does not extend to advising parties, resolving disputes between them, ensuring that their case is presented in a particular way, or making assumptions about the support an individual with a disability might need where this has not been specifically requested.
73. Taking all of the available information into account, we have no indications that HMCTS failed to consider or implement reasonable adjustments and it is not appropriate for us to take further action in this element of Mr R’s complaint.
Complaint Handling
74. Mr R also complains about HMCTS’s complaint handling and told us that HMCTS did not properly address key elements of his complaint or the impact of its administrative handling, and instead dismissed those matters as judicial issues.
75. We have reviewed HMCTS’s complaint responses. These show that HMCTS considered the concerns Mr R raised and provided an explanation of its position. In particular, HMCTS explained that matters relating to the conduct of the hearing, the contents of the bundle and the admission of evidence fall within the court’s judicial function.
76. HMCTS’s responses also reflect that, from its perspective, the documents required by the court order had already been filed in accordance with the judge’s directions. In those circumstances, its role was limited to facilitating the administrative process for submitting documents. Responsibility for identifying, preparing and submitting evidence rests with the parties, subject to the court’s directions.
77. We recognise that the distinction between what is administrative and what is judicial may not always be clear, particularly for someone navigating the court process without legal support. However, this distinction is important in determining what HMCTS can and cannot comment on.
78. Based on the evidence we have seen, HMCTS’s complaint handling in this case is consistent with the distinction between HMCTS’s administrative role and the role of the court. HMCTS does not have authority to comment on or influence judicial decisions, including decisions about how a hearing proceeds or what evidence is considered, and as such cannot consider these issues through its complaints process.
79. In those circumstances, it was appropriate for HMCTS to explain that it could not comment on those aspects of Mr R’s complaint. For this reason, we cannot take further action in this element of Mr R’s complaint.