Family Courts: 22 Apr 2024: Hansard Written Answers

Alex Cunningham Shadow Minister (Justice)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many open family cases there are in each Designated Family Judge area for (a) public and (b) private family law; and what proportion of those cases in each area involve litigants in person in (i) 31 March 2011, (ii) 31 March 2016 and (iii) 31 March 2019.

Tweet Share
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 22 April 2024, cW)

Mike Freer Assistant Whip, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice

The information requested is provided in the data tables below and is taken from HMCTS administrative data systems.

We have not been able to provide figures for 2011 as this data was not recorded centrally before 2014.

Count of the Private and Public Law Open Caseload as at the 31st March 2016 broken down by representative ^1,2
	Public Law³ Open Caseload				Private Law Open Caseload
DESIGNATED FAMILY JUDGE AREA	Both Applicant and Respondent were represented	Applicant only represented	Respondent only represented	Neither Applicant nor Respondent Represented	Both Applicant and Respondent were represented	Applicant only represented	Respondent only represented	Neither Applicant nor Respondent Represented
Birmingham	188	58	1	9	203	321	124	435
Blackburn/Lancaster	264	37	0	0	151	185	78	196
Bournemouth and Dorset	114	17	0	2	53	86	41	118
Brighton	141	41	0	3	90	171	93	283
Bristol (A, NS and G)	194	38	1	0	116	141	90	201
Carlisle	75	13	0	3	33	52	20	75
Central London	302	93	6	6	224	375	150	606
Cleveland and South Durham	167	35	0	2	107	98	45	117
Coventry	130	21	0	3	106	116	53	171
Derby	101	18	0	1	76	77	51	96
Devon	169	39	0	1	103	127	79	158
East London	290	96	0	2	267	379	183	630
Essex and Suffolk	209	66	0	0	150	221	158	337
Guildford	60	31	0	0	70	67	47	138
Humberside	124	32	0	2	64	103	53	182
Leicester	128	27	0	1	87	88	63	146
Lincoln	67	8	0	0	57	73	40	70
Liverpool	371	101	1	5	210	263	158	448
Luton	81	13	1	1	47	100	52	158
Manchester	326	136	1	4	249	321	154	466
Medway and Canterbury	193	51	1	2	59	93	46	220
Milton Keynes	97	16	0	2	48	63	40	96
North Wales	87	14	0	1	85	54	60	70
North Yorkshire	42	11	0	1	64	56	29	85
Northampton	121	37	0	0	38	57	48	155
Northumbria and North Durham	392	77	0	5	191	220	113	270
Norwich	92	23	0	0	52	89	38	116
Nottingham	129	23	0	2	108	135	102	159
Peterborough and Cambridge	109	19	0	0	57	69	30	101
Portsmouth (Hampshire and IOW)	154	30	0	1	140	200	110	301
Reading	201	34	0	2	160	211	109	263
Royal Courts of Justice	25	21	2	1	214	460	36	164
South East Wales	211	31	1	2	165	172	110	227
South Yorkshire	236	47	0	1	134	168	97	264
Stoke on Trent	123	28	1	2	101	122	81	161
Swansea	111	33	1	0	133	87	64	65
Swindon	54	10	0	0	66	103	54	145
Taunton	92	10	0	2	28	43	23	60
Truro	47	5	0	0	50	46	30	71
Watford	110	33	0	0	76	90	66	170
West London	277	74	0	2	208	296	167	424
West Yorkshire	308	39	0	5	215	296	135	276
Wolverhampton	213	58	0	0	139	186	67	174
Worcester	71	15	0	1	68	74	44	86
(blank)	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
Grand Total	6996	1659	17	77	5062	6757	3431	9154
Count of the Private and Public Law Open Caseload as at the 31st March 2019 broken down by representative ^1,2
	Public Law³ Open Caseload				Private Law Open Caseload
DESIGNATED FAMILY JUDGE AREA	Both Applicant and Respondent were represented	Applicant only represented	Respondent only represented	Neither Applicant nor Respondent Represented	Both Applicant and Respondent were represented	Applicant only represented	Respondent only represented	Neither Applicant nor Respondent Represented
Birmingham	181	60	0	4	252	368	162	607
Blackburn/Lancaster	338	91	0	0	162	271	152	477
Bournemouth and Dorset	83	10	0	0	78	89	63	165
Brighton	177	26	0	0	134	167	101	339
Bristol (A, NS and G)	225	56	0	0	169	236	170	430
Carlisle	89	22	1	1	61	49	32	114
Central London	309	116	0	8	270	406	245	543
Cleveland and South Durham	240	59	0	6	107	127	75	178
Coventry	180	40	0	2	115	127	98	239
Derby	246	40	0	0	117	110	81	157
Devon	172	44	0	1	170	192	167	289
East London	346	128	0	5	432	594	371	1068
Essex and Suffolk	223	79	2	4	212	340	218	664
Guildford	96	43	0	1	106	105	79	291
Humberside	144	46	2	7	48	122	79	287
Leicester	132	39	0	5	127	177	105	275
Lincoln	98	16	0	0	84	126	72	155
Liverpool	418	156	0	5	244	379	245	689
Luton	55	22	0	2	60	91	55	181
Manchester	466	180	0	6	301	457	261	828
Medway and Canterbury	170	51	1	1	132	166	119	370
Milton Keynes	109	29	0	1	53	73	43	223
North Wales	107	29	2	1	91	87	50	93
North Yorkshire	39	9	0	2	86	114	71	150
Northampton	123	22	0	0	48	71	52	193
Northumbria and North Durham	440	168	1	7	288	377	282	627
Norwich	141	51	0	0	85	122	82	203
Nottingham	165	28	0	0	133	164	112	300
Peterborough and Cambridge	127	22	1	1	93	103	75	193
Portsmouth (Hampshire and IOW)	207	41	0	0	164	237	168	507
Reading	237	33	0	1	192	232	176	441
Royal Courts of Justice	14	11	0	0	143	390	27	130
South East Wales	243	51	0	6	245	257	188	416
South Yorkshire	337	45	0	0	181	198	160	390
Stoke on Trent	194	49	1	0	132	159	89	244
Swansea	141	18	0	4	225	154	98	144
Swindon	83	9	0	1	56	81	54	160
Taunton	63	6	0	0	57	48	53	116
Truro	56	9	0	0	60	53	53	114
Watford	85	14	0	0	99	121	84	303
West London	346	63	0	1	298	458	265	744
West Yorkshire	347	123	2	5	309	442	252	539
Wolverhampton	337	57	1	3	207	240	143	319
Worcester	58	22	0	2	104	96	59	105
Grand Total	8387	2233	14	93	6730	8976	5586	15000
This is Management Information; the data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time and may differ from previously published data.
Self-representation is determined by the field 'legal representation' in Familyman being left blank. Therefore, this is only a proxy measure and parties without a recorded representative are not necessarily self-representing litigants in person.
2. A party is considered 'applicant-represented' if at least one applicant has a recorded representative, and likewise for respondents.
3. The majority of Public law applicants are public bodies with access to their own legal resources - however, this legal representation is often not recorded. To address this, we introduced a methodology which assumes that all public body applicants have legal representation.
Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No1 person thinks not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Tweet Share
(Citation: HC Deb, 22 April 2024, cW)

TheyWorkForYou

Family Courts

Alex Cunningham Shadow Minister (Justice)

Mike Freer Assistant Whip, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice

Does this answer the above question?

TheyWorkForYou