header-logo header-logo

16 April 2015
Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Keeping an eye on party pledges

What impact could the General Election result have on the UK legal landscape?

Lawyers are keeping a close eye on manifesto pledges by the main parties in the run up to the 7 May General Election.

The Conservatives have promised to scrap the Human Rights Act, and replace it with a Bill of Rights. They claim ditching the link between the UK’s courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and making the UK Supreme Court the highest court of human rights in the UK, would end the “mission creep” of human rights law. This proposal, announced last year, led the Labour Party to obtain a legal opinion from two Matrix Chambers QCs, who described it as “wholly unworkable, legally contradictory and inherently inconsistent”.

The party also pledges to continue with its courts modernisation and legal aid reform programmes, which have proved controversial so far among lawyers, with the judiciary and legal professional bodies opposed to plans to increase civil court fees by as much as 600%.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to review the proposed civil court fee rises if in government. If the fee increases do go ahead, Law Society president Andrew Caplen has said the legal professional bodies will not pursue a judicial review but will “closely monitor their impact” and gather case studies to continue the campaign.

Labour has also pledged to abolish the employment tribunal fees system, claiming new charges of up to £1,200 introduced in July 2013 have blocked access to justice in many cases.

The party’s headline promise to end tax breaks for non-domiciled residents (non-doms) has proved controversial. Non-doms can choose whether to pay tax on overseas earnings but must, if they have lived here for seven years, pay an annual fee of £30,000-£90,000. Peter Vaines, tax partner at Squire Patton Boggs, says: “This cannot sensibly be categorised as a loophole by any stretch of the imagination.

“It is exactly how the law has always been intended to work—and the UK has benefited very substantially as a result. Many other countries just have a different name for it, taxing people on local source income and not on foreign income.”

Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll