header-logo header-logo

08 January 2010
Issue: 7399 / Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/3390)

Makes consequential amendments on the commencement of primary legislation:

  • Legal Services Act 2007; and
  • Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Makes consequential amendments allowing service of documents on a party’s legal representative, qualified to practise in England and Wales but based in another EU member state, in order to comply with 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market.

Transfers functions of Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals as part of the new unified tribunal structure established under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

In force :

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll