‘The Legal Services Board (LSB) has attacked the “arbitrary nature” of the separate business rule used by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and said the list of what is permitted and what is not is “confusing”.’
Legal Futures, 10th October 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Judges who give permission for the withdrawal of part 36 offers must disclose the arguments and evidence behind their decisions, the High Court has ruled.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 9th October 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A revised Local Government Transparency Code is to come into force in England next month, the Department for Communities and Local Government has announced.’
Local Government, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The lord chancellor acted ‘unlawfully’ in the way he consulted on controversial plans to shake up criminal legal aid, the High Court ruled today [19 September].’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of R (on the application of Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and another sheds further light on the continuing duty of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose information in criminal cases post-conviction.’
RPC Privacy Law, 19th September 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
In re X (Adopted Child: Access to Court File)[2014] EWFC 33; [2014] WLR (D) 390
‘Since FPR 2010 r 14.24 was not subject to the qualification that it applied only “in exceptional circumstances” there was nothing which required the same approach to apply in the case of an application under rule 14.24 (or its predecessors) as applied in the case of an application under section 79(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 although, given the context, an application under rule 14.24 should always be approached with an appropriate degree of caution.’
WLR Daily, 9th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A former legal director of Times Newspapers Ltd was guilty of “recklessly” rather than “knowingly” misleading the court in relation to litigation over revelations about the “NightJack” blogger, the High Court has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 12th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Mandip Ghai, solicitor and legal officer, with Rights of Women, updates practitioners on developments in the prevention of domestic violence.’
Family Law Week, 11th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A woman has been granted permission to look at court files relating to her father’s adoption to discover the identity of her grandmother, in a ground-breaking judgment that sets a precedent for revealing secret family histories.’
The Guardian, 9th September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Information Commissioner has today published his keenly anticipated guidance on ‘Data Protection and Journalism: A Guide for the Media’. The guidance has been published following a lengthy consultative process and in response to a recommendation made in the Leveson report.’
Panopticon, 4th September 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The ex-wife of a businessman who claims her former husband cheated her out of millions in their divorce settlement has won the right to take her case to the Supreme Court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 5th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Disclosure of information about children, pursuant to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI), is always a difficult issue and the natural reaction of public authorities is to err on the side of caution.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Law Society’s freedom of information adjudicator has rejected a bid to open up public access to accountant’s reports submitted to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.’
Legal Futures, 20th August 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Three City firms – Clyde & Co, Stephenson Harwood and Addleshaw Goddard – face a combined disclosure exercise which could last for months and cost £2.5m after a High Court ruling on legal professional privilege.’
Litigation Futures, 18th August 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘M, who was 24-years-old, was in the late stages of her first pregnancy (X County Council v M). She suffered from persecuting delusions including a belief that mental health services were “murderers” and would murder her and her unborn child. The local authority applied to the court for permission not to disclose to M the care plan for the removal of her baby at birth. They also applied for a reporting restrictions order. The Family Division held that despite the fact that both orders sought were draconian, the orders would be granted in the circumstances of the case.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 14th August 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov et al 8 August 2014, Popplewell J. What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers). Well, that is the general rule. And this case reminds us that there is an exception to this – when the relationship between client and lawyer is affected by “iniquity”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th August 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Metropolitan police lose legal fight over keeping secret the names of officers who fathered children with their ‘targets’
The Guardian, 15th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers).’
Legal Week, 13th August 2014
Source: www.legalweek.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025