A boutique family practice is having to produce two cost estimates for clients due to uncertainty over whether the court hearing will be remote or require in-person attendance.

Katie Welton-Dillon, head of the children’s law team at Hall Brown Family Law, which has offices in Manchester, Sheffield and London, says local differences in how courts deal with attended hearings could be resolved with a national strategy.

She said: ‘The family court is trying to do its very best to guide clients and lawyers alike through this current period. Family lawyers like myself are also trying to help by providing clients with some certainty in what is still a rather uncertain environment.

‘Currently, different courts are adopting different approaches when it comes to attended and remote hearings. Whilst, on the one hand, it is a positive development to have courts able to determine which type of hearing is appropriate based on the circumstances of individual cases, we have to change the way that we approach proceedings. For instance, the costs associated with in-person hearings are significantly higher than for those done remotely.

‘As a result, we now produce two cost estimates for clients because of the potential for their cases to be heard in court or remotely.’

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division, has been reluctant to issue formal guidance or practice directions on hearings because he believes the hearing format should be decided by the judge in charge of the case ‘unfettered by any prescriptive diktat from on high’.

Welton-Dillon said the last two years have demonstrated the important role that remote hearings can play in freeing court time for more detailed, evidence-based hearings. However, a review of how the lessons of the pandemic might be applied to courts nationwide would be helpful.

Last month McFarlane clarified revised arrangements for physical attendance in court following confusion over an earlier direction.