‘A new practice direction reveals some valuable progress in the management of closed judgments, but leaves uncertainty and, very worryingly, indicates that some judgments will be destroyed.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th January 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Emma Chowdhury, of the International Family Law Group, discusses new Practice Direction FPR 2010 PD 36L whichs allow some litigants in person to pilot the next stage of the online divorce system.’
Family Law, 24th January 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘“It certainly should not become routine to provide two versions which, as here, travel over much of the same ground. That approach tests the patience of the experts (and frankly of the court); produces a lengthier joint statement; potentially increases costs and is simply not the best way to focus on the issues. I do not think that anything further needs to be said or done in this case. However, if this worrying trend continues, parties may find that courts begin considering costs consequences.” – Mrs Justice Yip commenting on the experts’ agendas in the recent case of Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust 2018 EWHC 1917 QB.’
No. 5 Chambers, 10th December 2018
Source: www.no5.com
‘Speech by the Right Honourable Lady Justice Rafferty to the Criminal Law Review Conference.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 12th December 2018
Source: www.judiciary.gov
‘A pilot Practice Direction 36J comes into force on 1 October 2018 to allow certain lawyers to attend family proceedings in the Family Court and Family Division of the High Court with a view to reporting on proceedings. These persons are colloquially described as ‘legal bloggers’. The pilot will run for nine months and concludes on 30 June 2019.’
Family Law, 27th August 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘On 13 March 2018, a new practice direction was issued by the President concerning Case Management and Mediation of International Child Abduction Proceedings.
A practice direction tells anyone involved in judicial proceedings how to manage the case and interpret the Court rules. The practice guidance has been issued by the President to ensure all applications are appropriately case managed – whether commenced by a without notice application or on notice. The guidance deals with a number of aspects of child abduction proceedings, but practitioners should take note in particular of the changes made in relation to without notice applications and mediation.’
Family Law, 21st March 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Authoritative guidance on whether clients can demand their full files from previous solicitors would help the Senior Courts Costs Office deal with the large number of applications it is facing, a costs judge has said.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as ‘hot-tubbing’ – came into force last week, along with a new provision that clarifies how the costs of costs management should be calculated.’
Litigation Futures, 1st December 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘There is to be a new part of the Civil Procedure Rules to deal with the launch of the Business and Property Courts (BPCs) to emphasise that no case is too big to be tried outside London, it has been decided.’
Litigation Futures, 20th November 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Marie Crawford, barrister of Becket Chambers, explains in detail the changes to Practice Direction 12J.’
Family Law Week, 17th November 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, has issued a revised Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 which came into force on 2 October 2017. The Practice Direction applies to any family proceedings in the Family Court or the High Court and specifically applies to any application made for a Child Arrangements Order or should any question arise about where a child should live, or about contact between a child and a parent or other family member and the court considers that an order should be made.’
Family Law, 3rd October 2017
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Children at risk of psychogical or physical abuse must not have contact with parent, judges told (sic)
This was the headline in The Times that arose from the publication by the President of the Family Division of a revised Practice Direction 12J (PD12J). PD12J is the part of the family court rules that sets out how the court should deal with allegations of domestic abuse.’
Transparency Project, 24th September 2017
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The President of the Family Division has issued a circular dealing with domestic abuse and containing a new PD12J, which comes into force on 2 October 2017.’
Family Law, 14th September 2017
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in Pre-Action Correspondence – Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through 2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right.’
NIPC Law, 4th August 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Until the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) came into force in 1999 solicitors specializing in intellectual property law heralded litigation with an ultimatum called a letter before action. Written in haughty if not insulting terms and accompanied by a humiliating form of undertakings, they were intended to shock the recipient into submission. They rarely achieved the desired result. As often as not they were simply ignored. Occasionally, they were answered by a defiant response. As a result, a lot of actions were launched that could easily have been settled without recourse to litigation.’
NIPC Law, 2nd August 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) agreed minor variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as “hot-tubbing” – but acknowledged the changes it has approved to the CPR are “not as radical” as had been recommended by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).’
Litigation Futures, 14th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Recent uncertainty as to how a costs budget impacts on the final bill in relation to both incurred and estimated costs has, to some extent, been resolved by the judgment in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792.’
Zenith PI, 6th July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’
Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A law firm LLP which acted for itself in legal proceedings is not a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has held.’
Litigation Futures, 26th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Marie Crawford, barrister of Becket Chambers, considers the orders a court might make at first hearing and dispute resolution appointment.’
Family Law Week, 9th June 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024