header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 August 2016 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , EU , Human rights
printer mail-detail

All in due course?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7710_parpworth

Neil Parpworth takes stock of where we are at in relation to human rights reform
  • How will Theresa May’s government deal with the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, especially now that the EU Referendum outcome has led to a whole host of issues which will need to be prioritised?

Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights is, for some, a solution in search of a problem. Nevertheless, the Conservative government under David Cameron announced in its manifesto prior to the 7 May 2015 General Election that if elected, this was one of the reforms it would introduce. Thus as the then Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove MP, asserted on a number of occasions, the government had a mandate for human rights reform. It was therefore believed in advance of the 2015 Queen’s Speech that a Bill would be announced. Instead, the two Houses were informed that: “My government will bring forward proposals for a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll