Politics

New law officers sworn in

Today the new Law Officers, Richard Hermer KC as Attorney General and Sarah Sackman MP as Solicitor General (both from Matrix Chambers), swore an oath, alongside the new Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, to respect the rule of law and serve the King. This is apparently the first time this ancient oath has committed the Law Officers to uphold the rule of law. Mahmood swore her oath as Lord Chancellor on the Qur’an, as Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill CJ welcomed her into the first all-female partnership to lead the justice system.

Swearing in of the new Lord Chancellor: LCJ’s speech

Swearing in of the new Attorney General: AG’s speech

Joshua Rozenberg, A Lawyer Writes: Rule of law

Law Society Gazette: Lord chancellor sworn in by Lady Chief Justice in historic firsts

Call for open government

A joint open letter has been sent to the UK Prime Minister from the UK Open Government network and a number of other civil society organisations and individuals, calling on Sir Keir Starmer KC MP to support the aims of the international 75-country Open Government Partnership founded in 2011. It urges him and his government to “embrace technology and improve transparency, accountability, integrity and participation”, and to continue the practice of civil servants and civil society working together, “which we believe could be expanded to support the delivery of mission-driven government”. It points out that

“The Post Office scandal, PPE procurement during the pandemic, the opaque mortgage-raising 2022 mini-budget, the impact of corruption on UK growth and democracy and the disregard for public standards and subsequent collapse in trust demonstrate that open government is not peripheral to people’s lives: it is central.”

A truncated version of the letter was published in The Observer over the weekend.

Media law

Freedom of expression under threat

The launch at Doughty Street Chambers last week of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists (27th ed) edited by Siân Harrison and Gill Phillips, was marked by speeches highlighting the importance of a free press and open justice. As well as hearing from the editors of the current edition of the journalists’ legal bible and , there were speeches from Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC and Mr Justice Nicklin. The launch was co-hosted by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.

Gallagher spoke about the threats to journalism from “extreme legal hurdles” and powerful interests and individuals, as well as denigration of the press by Western governments and Western politicians which then had an impact across the world, encouraging less democratic regimes to attack and abuse journalists. Her speech is more fully reported by the Press Gazette, UK media facing ‘extreme legal hurdles’, top lawyer warns.

Nicklin J spoke in praise of reporters and the work they do in promoting transparency in the justice system. He was previously judge in charge of the Media and Communications List in the High Court, and is now chair of the newly launched Transparency and Open Justice Board. He will be seeking the views of a broad range of potential members of a Stakeholder Committee, a call for interest in which was announced the same day.

In the same week, we heard some good stories about actual court reporting:

Family law

Reporting Pilot extended

The transparency Reporting Pilot launched last year by the President of the Family Division’s Transparency Implementation Group (TIG) has been further extended, this time to include private law disputes in the 16 courts that were added to the pilot in January 2024. Previously it only covered public law cases involving children. A separate pilot in some courts deals with financial disputes.

The pilots work by reversing the default position on reporting restriction in favour of permitting reporting, subject to strict conditions of anonymity, rather than requiring reporters and bloggers permitted to attend court under the rules then to seek permission to report anything they have seen there. The ability to report is being piloted to make sure it can be done safely and with minimum disruption to the court and to those involved in the cases. Judges in these courts make a ‘Transparency Order’, which sets out the rules on what can and cannot be reported.

Both public and private law cases can now be reported on in the following courts:

London: Central Family Court, East London, West London
Midlands: Nottingham, Stoke, Derby, Birmingham
North East: West Yorkshire, Kingston-upon-Hull
North West: Liverpool, Manchester, Carlisle
South East: Luton, Guildford, Milton Keynes
South West: Dorset, Truro
Wales: Cardiff

Guidance and training materials can be found on the TIG information page.

See also The Transparency Project: Updated Guidance — What to do if a reporter attends (or wants to attend) your hearing — Pilot and Non-Pilot Court versions

Neutral Citations updated

The National Archives, who are now the official publishers and distributors of senior court judgments in England and Wales, have been reissuing judgments from the Family Court and the Court of Protection, with an updated version of the neutral citation reflecting the status of the judge giving the judgment.

The new Family Court citations add a (B) after the case number for any decision not made by a High Court judge. The new Court of Protection citations add (T1), (T2) or (T3) after the case number according to whether the judge is a district, circuit or High Court judge. (The T stands for Tier.)

There is a fuller explanation, with examples, on our blog: Changes to Neutral Citations for Family Court and Court of Protection

We understand that existing judgments will eventually be updated to reflect the new regime, and that an updated practice direction will be issued. The current practice directions are:

Courts

Contempt of court

The Law Commission has launched a Consultation paper on provisional proposals for reform of the law of contempt in England and Wales, aiming to produce a law of contempt that is easier to understand, fairer, and that better protects the administration of justice. Broadly, the proposals are:

(1) To clarify and codify the law of contempt, by doing away with the centuries-old distinctions between “criminal contempt” and “civil contempt” in favour of a framework for liability with three distinct forms of contempt: general contempt; contempt by breach of order or undertaking; and contempt by publication when proceedings are active.

(2) To enhance transparency and accountability by, for example, requiring the publication of judgments in contempt cases where the court imposes imprisonment (something currently mandated by practice direction, but not consistently followed) and data relating to the Attorney General’s contempt function.

(3) To achieve greater consistency and ensure fairness for defendants, and to expand the sanctions the court may impose to include community sentences in addition to a fine or imprisonment.

(4) To improve some of the fundamental protections provided by the rule of law, such as extending the law of contempt to tribunals.

The public consultation period will run for four months, closing on 8 November 2024. A final report, taking responses into account, will be published in late 2025.

Online Procedure Rule Committee

The Online Procedure Rule Committee, which was established last year, has now launched a sub-committee of experts from across the civil, family and tribunals justice sector and members of the judiciary. Members of the sub-committee were selected following a call of expressions of interest issued last November.

Online Procedure Rule Committee launches sub-committee

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

AIRCRAFT — Carriage by air — Compensation and assistance to passengers: Lipton v BA Cityflyer Ltd, 10 Jul 2024 [2024] UKSC 24; [2024] WLR(D) 325, SC(E)

ARBITRATION — Appeal — Court’s jurisdiction: Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v Federal Republic of Nigeria, 12 Jul 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 790; [2024] WLR(D) 332, CA

BANKRUPTCY — Trustee in bankruptcy — Property passing to trustee: In re Palmer (Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Abdulali), 05 Jul 2024 [2024] EWHC 1722 (Ch); [2024] WLR(D) 330, Ch D

BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication: Toppan Holdings Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) LLP (Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) LLP, Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP), 09 Jul 2024 [2024] UKSC 23; [2024] WLR(D) 320, SC(E)

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP — Dissolution — Financial provision: N v J, 15 Jul 2024 [2024] EWFC 184; [2024] WLR(D) 333, Fam Ct

DISCRIMINATION — Race — Employment: Karim v General Medical Council, 09 Jul 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 770; [2024] WLR(D) 324, CA

EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Right to reside:

FINANCIAL SERVICES — Regulated activities — Collective investment scheme: KVB Consultants Ltd v Jacob Hopkins McKenzie Ltd, 09 Jul 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 765; [2024] WLR(D) 321, CA

LICENSING — Premises licence — Review: Walk Safe Security Services Ltd v Lewisham London Borough Council, 11 Jul 2024 [2024] EWHC 1787 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 331, KBD

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Law & Religion UK: Non-Christian symbols on churchyard headstones: Re St. Mary Shotesham [2024] ECC Nor 4, Const Ct

A Lawyer Writes: BA must pay. Staff sickness is far from extraordinary, the Supreme Court rules: Lipton v BA City Flyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24, SC(E)

Inforrm’s Blog: A Call for Appellate Intervention on Reputational Harm Damages: Pacini v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2024] EWHC 1709 (KB), KBD

Mills & Reeve: Mental capacity: best interests decisions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board v PC [2024] EWCOP 31 (T3), Ct of Protection

Out-Law: Court of Appeal clarifies level of particularisation required for civil fraud claim: Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered plc [2024] EWCA Civ 674; [2024] WLR(D) 294, CA

Inforrm’s Blog: US Supreme Court kicks cases about tech companies’ First Amendment rights back to lower courts: but appears poised to block states from hampering online content moderation: Moody v NetChoice, 603 U.S. ___ (2024); Slip opinion, SC (US)

4 New Square Chambers: Adjudication and Collateral Warranties — Supreme Court Decision in Abbey v Simply: Toppan Holdings Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) LLP [2024] UKSC 23; [2024] WLR(D) 320, SC(E)

4–5 Gray’s Inn Square: Habitats assessments: it’s not too late and everything is included: C G Fry and Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWCA Civ 730; [2024] WLR(D) 300, CA

That’s it for now! Thanks for reading, and thanks for all your toots, tweets, posts and links. Work hard, be kind, take care.

(We’ve stopped doing Tweet of the Week because X posts won’t embed properly any more on this site.)

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.