REUTERS | Charlie Saceda
July 20, 2016

Brexit and costs

You may think that the law of costs will sail on majestically, despite the political turmoil of the last few weeks. Who could have predicted, however, that instead of Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, we would have Liz Truss?

Her appointment has brought forth trenchant criticism from, amongst others, Lord Falconer, but countervailing support from Lord Pannick. I express no view on her suitability for the post but, rather, want to look into her personal and political background to see if there are any hints on how she may deal with some of the issues that remained in Michael Gove’s in-tray concerning litigation funding before his sudden departure. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Pascal Lauener
July 14, 2016

Bringing the Bar to the pub: “pop-up justice” for the 21st century?

On 30 June 2016, The Times reported on a speech given by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, to a conference organised by Solicitors for the Elderly. It touched on the possibility of holding court hearings in public places other than court buildings. On the same day, The Daily Mail reported that “[m]akeshift courts could be held in buildings such as pubs or town halls.” Now, many a practitioner (not least myself) has calculated the swiftest route from a judicial tongue-lashing to some alcoholic relief from sanction, but can they really be proposing pub hearings (legal history buffs might like to note that a Court of Piepowders, described by Sir William Blackstone as “the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England”, sat at the Stag and Hounds in Bristol until 1870)? Probably not. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Sergio Moraes
July 14, 2016

The vexing issue of litigants in person and civil procedure: part 1

Two recent cases juxtaposed illustrate the courts’ dilemma when dealing with litigants in person in the post-Jackson environment.

Whilst the rules now place increased emphasis on the need for compliance with court rules, orders and directions (and there are strict criteria for the grant of relief from sanctions), against that is the concern to provide access to justice and the challenges that can arise with increasing numbers of litigants in person. Continue reading →