Article by Emma-Justine Michaux

By way of context, Lay Justices are volunteers with no legal background who make binding decisions in both private and public family law cases. As they are not legally qualified, they are advised on matters of law and procedure by legal advisers.

This setting is similar to that of a judge giving legal directions to a jury in a criminal trial. However, legal advisers are not required to follow the stringent rules that apply to judges when summarising the facts of a case and giving clear and concise directions to magistrates, nor do they possess the same level of experience and qualification as judges.

In light of these circumstances, there was previously an automatic right of appeal against a decision made by Lay Justices, without the need to obtain permission.

Following the Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025, changes have been made and, since 2 March 2026, permission to appeal is required in order to challenge a decision made by a bench of Lay Justices. An application for permission must be made by way of an appeal notice to the appeal court, meaning a judge of a higher level within the Family Court rather than the court below. Permission to appeal will therefore not be determined by a bench of Lay Justices.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 sets out the following reasons for this change:

• It would provide consistency across the family courts by requiring permission to appeal regardless of the level of judge whose decision is being challenged;
• There is an increasing volume of private family law work undertaken by Lay Justices, and the change has the potential to reduce unmeritorious appeals and conserve court resources.

Although the majority of designated family judges were supportive of this change, some consultees raised concerns regarding the absence of statistical evidence demonstrating a widespread issue, the adequacy of existing case management powers, and the implications for the training and support of Lay Justices and their advisers.

The burden is now on appellants to demonstrate either that their appeal has a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.