*/
Outsourcing giant Capita has been ordered to pay costs by the President of the Family Division for “serial failures” to provide Slovak interpreting services.
In Re Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd [2015] EWFC 5, costs of £13,338.15 were awarded to Kent County Council in respect of hearings on 7 May and 14 November last year.
Sir James Munby had been forced to adjourn the final adoption hearing on 7 May after no one could attend to translate for the Slovak-speaking parents. Two interpreters had been booked on 14 April, but only at 2pm on the day before the hearing was the court was informed by Capita Translation and Interpreting that no interpreters were available.
In an approved judgment, Sir James explained: “This was done by an automatically generated email which included the words ‘We apologise for any inconvenience caused’ – a banal and formulaic statement hardly reflecting the fact that a failure to provide interpreters, particular in a case such as this, causes much more than ‘inconvenience’ to all concerned, not least to the anxious parents.”
Of crucial importance was the agreement between Capita and the Secretary of State for Justice, analysed in Re Applied Language Solutions Ltd [2013] EWCA Crim 326 and equally applicable to public family law proceedings: if a private company takes on the discharge of an obligation of the state, it assumes the responsibility to do so in accordance with the terms it has agreed.
The standard identified by Cobb J in B v B (Costs: Order against non-party) [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam) was also applied: the failures were “not minor but extensive, and, at two different stages of the litigation, they had a profound effect on the conduct of the proceedings”.
He emphasised that the decision was reached on the facts of this particular case: “I am not to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide an interpreter... Nor am I to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide a Slovak interpreter, lamentable though its failures to provide such interpreters were in this particular case and, seemingly, more generally.
“Nor should it be assumed that a similar liability will extend to other private-sector contractors whose failures can impact adversely upon the court sitting-day, for example, the companies responsible for producing prisoners at court...”
The “serial failures” in this case reflected wider systemic problems evidenced in the Ministry of Justice’s 2012-2013 Statistical Bulletin. The low “success rate” in the provision of Slovak interpreters (77.7% in 2013), which was “reflected in the complaint rate which is amongst the highest of all language requests”, contrasted markedly to an overall success rate of 93.4% in Q4 2013. Sir James refused permission to appeal.
Sir James Munby had been forced to adjourn the final adoption hearing on 7 May after no one could attend to translate for the Slovak-speaking parents. Two interpreters had been booked on 14 April, but only at 2pm on the day before the hearing was the court was informed by Capita Translation and Interpreting that no interpreters were available.
In an approved judgment, Sir James explained: “This was done by an automatically generated email which included the words ‘We apologise for any inconvenience caused’ – a banal and formulaic statement hardly reflecting the fact that a failure to provide interpreters, particular in a case such as this, causes much more than ‘inconvenience’ to all concerned, not least to the anxious parents.”
Of crucial importance was the agreement between Capita and the Secretary of State for Justice, analysed in Re Applied Language Solutions Ltd [2013] EWCA Crim 326 and equally applicable to public family law proceedings: if a private company takes on the discharge of an obligation of the state, it assumes the responsibility to do so in accordance with the terms it has agreed.
The standard identified by Cobb J in B v B (Costs: Order against non-party) [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam) was also applied: the failures were “not minor but extensive, and, at two different stages of the litigation, they had a profound effect on the conduct of the proceedings”.
He emphasised that the decision was reached on the facts of this particular case: “I am not to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide an interpreter... Nor am I to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide a Slovak interpreter, lamentable though its failures to provide such interpreters were in this particular case and, seemingly, more generally.
“Nor should it be assumed that a similar liability will extend to other private-sector contractors whose failures can impact adversely upon the court sitting-day, for example, the companies responsible for producing prisoners at court...”
The “serial failures” in this case reflected wider systemic problems evidenced in the Ministry of Justice’s 2012-2013 Statistical Bulletin. The low “success rate” in the provision of Slovak interpreters (77.7% in 2013), which was “reflected in the complaint rate which is amongst the highest of all language requests”, contrasted markedly to an overall success rate of 93.4% in Q4 2013. Sir James refused permission to appeal.
Outsourcing giant Capita has been ordered to pay costs by the President of the Family Division for “serial failures” to provide Slovak interpreting services.
In Re Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd [2015] EWFC 5, costs of £13,338.15 were awarded to Kent County Council in respect of hearings on 7 May and 14 November last year.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
