‘People taking high value cases through civil courts in England and Wales will be expected to pay much more towards their running costs, Courts Minister Shailesh Vara has announced – while the fees for domestic violence injunctions will be scrapped.’
Ministry of Justice, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“The intention of this post is a simple one: to assess the ways in which natural justice arguments have historically been raised in private law proceedings. By ‘natural justice’ I mean those common law principles requiring a fair procedure and an unbiased tribunal when powers are exercised. Ordinarily, of course, natural justice arguments arise in judicial review proceedings against public bodies in the Administrative Court or Upper Tribunal, usually when those bodies are exercising a statutory power. But to what extent can it be argued that a private body, in its private relations with private individuals, has acted unlawfully by making decisions in a procedurally unfair manner?”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 21st November 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“The government’s response to the consultation paper on whiplash claims has recently been published. Within it, the government scraps the idea of raising the small claims limit for personal injury claims to £5,000; a measure which would capture most road traffic claims in the UK. It was seen by many as a pivotal brick in the Jackson campaign for proportionate costs, as it would fix the costs entitlement for most whiplash claims at fixed commencement costs for small claims. This would net a significant saving in adverse costs payments at a national level. So, why was a measure of seemingly vital importance discarded so summarily by the government?”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 15th November 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Seven months into the Jackson reforms and litigators see rising costs and no greater access to justice as the main results so far, according to a new poll.”
Litigation Futures, 31st October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Master of the Rolls speech: Hong Kong lecture – 18 October 2013.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Birkenhead Lecture by the Lord Chief Justice, 22/10/2013.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st October 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“As part of a recent EU project, Marc Willers has produced this rough guide to the Civil Appeal System in England and Wales.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“Justice – Tom Sargant memorial lecture 2013, 15th October 2013.”
CrimeLine, 15th October 2013
Source: www.crimeline.info
“Parties to litigation in the civil courts need more guidance about what constitutes an ‘appropriate’ costs budget and the consequences of not meeting the requirements of the new costs management regime, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Liz Davies, writing in the Morning Star on Saturday 14 September, delivers a grim warning about the future of legal aid.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 17th September 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“Mohammed Saleem Tariq & Anton van Dellen reflect on the early days of the Jackson reforms.”
New Law Journal, 6th September 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“The Legal Action Group has warned that what remains of civil legal aid could just ‘wither away’ as new research reveals ‘a disturbing reduction’ in the take-up of cases, writes Jon Robins. According to the group, there has been a marked drop off even for the cases still covered by legal aid.”
LegalVoice, 11th September 2013
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
Privacy campaigners have condemned Google for responding to British users’ claims that it had illicitly tracked their web browsing by claiming that UK laws do not apply to it.
The Guardian, 19th August 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“It might be that the sanction of committal for contempt for ignoring orders of the court in respect of providing proper financial information in divorce proceedings may be more likely than before – partly in view of the new climate intended to be fostered by the ‘Jackson’ reforms.”
Sovereign Chambers, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“In Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 the claimants (respondents in the Supreme Court) were bringing civil claims for damages against the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) alleging complicity by the defendants in their mistreatment by foreign powers (including detention at Guantanamo Bay). The defendants as part of their defence wished to place before the court ‘security sensitive material’ – presumably the evidence of intelligence agents, or similar, denying the complicity – which for security reasons could not be disclosed to the claimants. Thus the defendants submitted that the court hold a “closed material procedure”. They envisaged that the evidence would be placed before the courts in closed session, i.e. a session from which the claimants and their representatives (and the public) were excluded. In the closed session the claimants would be represented by “special advocates” appointed by the court who would have access to the evidence but would not be able to take instructions from the claimants. Such procedures are controversial since they threaten the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice. On the other hand, the national interest would doubtless be impaired, in some cases, if intelligence agents gave evidence and their methods and secrets were exposed in open court.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“A couple who spent their retirement savings on a caravan only to see it stolen were astounded when police said the travellers who are living in it could not be removed as it would breach their ‘human rights’.”
Daily Telegraph, 30th July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Short, old-style rulings that lay out the legal propositions relevant to the case and the conclusions reached by applying them should help reduce the cost litigation, the Court of Appeal has suggested.”
Litigation Futures, 25th July 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Dr Hywel Francis MP, is today launching an inquiry into the implications for access to justice of certain of the Government’s proposals to reform legal aid, as set out in its Consultation Paper Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system.”
Joint Committee on Human Rights, 18th July 2013
Source: www.parliament.uk
“The tension between transparency and individual privacy is part of what makes information rights such a fascinating and important area. When it comes to high-public interest issues involving particular individuals, prevailing wisdom has tended to be something like this: say as much as possible on an open basis, but redact and anonymise so as to protect the identity of the individuals involved. Increasingly, however, transparency is outmuscling privacy. See for example my post about the Tribunal’s order of disclosure, in the FOIA context, of the details of the compensation package of a Chief Executive of an NHS Trust (the case of Dicker v IC (EA/2012/0250).”
Panopticon, 11th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Salahuddin Amin v Director General of MI5, Chief of MI6, the FCO, the Home Office and the Attorney General- [2013] EWHC 1579 (QB). Do not be misled by the impressive cast list of defendants in this case it means simply that the claimant was attempting to attack the integrity of his criminal conviction via the civil courts.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025