header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 August 2008 / David Pope
Issue: 7333 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Location, location, location

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The law lords' move to Middlesex Guildhall cannot happen soon enough, says David Pope

When Lord Falconer announced i n Dec ember 2004 that Middlesex Guildhall would be expensively renovated to house the new UK Supreme Court, I confess that I was sceptical. With so many deserving calls on public funds, I wondered how the government could sensibly justify spending £30m to move the 12 law lords from one side of Parliament Square to the other. I suspected a vanity project: the former Lord Chancellor wanted to put the bling into New Labour's dabbling in constitutional reform.

Change of Heart

I am a sceptic no longer. Not that my change of heart owes anything to the patter on the Ministry of Justice's website. I sincerely doubt that relocating the most senior judges in the land to a building a few hundred metres from the Palace of Westminster will play much part in “further separating the judiciary from the legislature”. And there is probably any number of sites in central London other than Middlesex Guildhall that

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll