header-logo header-logo

05 May 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

Justice adapts to COVID-19

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has commissioned an urgent review into the impact of COVID-19 on the civil justice system

The two-week independent review, due to end on 15 May and report back on 22 May, will be led by Dr Natalie Byrom, director of research at the Legal Education Foundation.

It will look at the swift expansion of the use of remote hearings, focusing on the experience of court users, and aims to offer practical recommendations for improvement. Practitioners are invited to submit materials to consultation@theLEF.org or, if they have taken part in or observed a remote hearing since 19 March, complete the CJC survey at www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/CJC_CovidReview. A virtual consultation meeting will be held on 11 May (joining instructions to be issued at a later date).

Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, said: ‘The evidence collected by this review will be invaluable in shaping the way forward for the civil justice system, both immediately and in the longer term.’

Meanwhile, the Jury Trial Working Group has made progress on plans to resume jury trials in criminal cases.

The group, chaired by Mr Justice Edis, met this week to discuss plans to restart jury trials in certain Crown Courts with enough space and a suitable design to allow for social distancing. It has identified a small number of Crown Courts as potential venues.

Further assessment will now take place with support from representatives of Public Health England and Public Health Wales, with the results due to be reported back to the group at its meeting next week.

The group is also assessing the readiness of criminal justice agencies and partners to support jury trials at these locations. 

The Lord Chief Justice postponed all new jury trials on 23 March, and the working group was convened a month later to look for ways to restart jury trials safely. 

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll