NEWTON’S LAW AND COMMUNICATING WITH THE COURT: THE NEED FOR PARTIES TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE
There are is brief passage in the judgment of Mr Recorder Allen QC in G v C  EWFC B35 (OJ) (16 July 2020) that is of general application.
“The communication has served to demonstrate Newton’s third law of motion namely that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”.”
The Recorder was hearing various applications in relation to financial remedies. The hearing had been heard remotely. After the hearing the parties lodged submissions.
THE RECORDER’S PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
The Recorder stated that, in addition to receiving the submissions, he had received emails from the parties’ solicitors. This was not a good thing.
B. Preliminary comment
Since the hearing on 18th May 2020, I have been sent a significant number of emails by the parties’ solicitors. I regret to say that the casual nature of the manner of communication with the court has been inappropriate and is to be deprecated. The communication has served to demonstrate Newton’s third law of motion namely that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”.
If a party seeks the assistance of the court (i) in the first instance they should communicate with the court through the formal channels (absent a specific invitation from an individual tribunal to the contrary); or (ii) if for urgency or other similarly exceptional reasons there is a need to communicate directly with the tribunal parties should in the first instance attempt to do so on a joint basis (setting out the areas of dispute where necessary). The benefits of adopting such an approach are obvious. I am sympathetic to Mr. Brooks’ observation, in an email to me on 16th April 2020 at 2.40 pm, that “[w]hilst we are fortunate to have access to your judicial email address, I am conscious that all decisions should go through the proper court procedure”.