HMCTS tried to avoid having to cancel hearing but inappropriately handled complaint

What happened

Ms L was involved in divorce proceedings. Following a financial dispute resolution hearing, the district judge ordered a final two-day hearing of Ms L's case. HMCTS made a request to the Judicial Secretariat for a judge to hear the case in accordance with its administrative processes. The vacancy for the judge for Ms L's case was circulated to deputy district judges in the area.

Two weeks before the hearing, the vacancy remained unfilled and the advert was extended to deputy district judges in the South East of England. However, two days before the final hearing, no judge had come forward and so HMCTS, along with the Judicial Secretariat, phoned all judges qualified to hear the case.

HMCTS also made enquiries to explore the possibility of moving existing booked deputy district judges around. In addition, other courts in the area were contacted to see if they had the capacity to hear Ms L's case, but unfortunately they were oversubscribed.

The day before the hearing, the situation remained unchanged and phone enquiries continued. At some point during the day, the Judicial Secretariat informed HMCTS that they had secured a judge, but they contacted HMCTS shortly after stating that the judge had cancelled at short notice. HMCTS and the Judicial Secretariat continued making phone enquiries, but were unsuccessful and at 4pm they contacted Ms L and her legal representatives and postponed the hearing.

Ms L complained to HMCTS and said she had to wait for another 17 months for her case to be heard and as a result she incurred additional legal costs. She said she experienced severe distress and the postponement prolonged the situation. She wanted HMCTS to recognise the emotional impact this had on her and to reimburse her legal costs.

What we found

We found that HMCTS followed its processes and procedures, and took appropriate action to avoid having to postpone. However, its complaint response to Ms L could have been more helpful and been clearer about the reasons why her hearing was postponed.

HMCTS stated that the postponement was due to the district deputy judge cancelling at short notice. This was not an accurate representation of the facts, as the hearing was postponed because of the unavailability of any judge to hear the case.

HMCTS' complaint handling was not helpful and actually may have confused matters for Ms L.

Putting it right

HMCTS wrote to Ms L and apologised for the poor handling of her complaint. HMCTS also gave its staff further training on effective complaint handling.