“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
“The high court has thrown out a damages case brought by a man convicted on terrorism charges who claimed MI5 was complicit in his alleged torture by Pakistan’s intelligence service.”
The Guardian, 26th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Significant changes to civil legal aid in England and Wales came into effect on 1 April 2013, as part of a plan to reform the system and save £350m a year.”
BBC News, 18th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Leading human rights barrister Dinah Rose challenges cabinet minister Ken Clarke over the Government’s extension of the use of secret courts.”
BBC Unreliable Evidence, 5th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Dominic Regan is in the mood for change post-Jackson.”
New Law Journal, 30th May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Lucy Scott-Moncrieff urges you to join the fight.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 25th May 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“If prizes were awarded to ‘Distinctions in English law’, then a good contender for the ‘lifetime achievement’ award would be the distinction between ‘law’ and ‘fact’. Whilst adventurers have their Swiss Army knife, and the Dr has his sonic screwdriver, lawyers have the multi-purpose malleable ‘law/fact’ distinction which is just as capable of opening or closing avenues of review, or providing a deus ex machina ‘get out of jail free’ card – or so a perusal of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court might have us believe.”
UK Constitutional Law Group 21st May 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025