header-logo header-logo

15 July 2022
Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Ministerial comings & goings

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has a temporary team in charge until at least 5 September, when Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to give way to a new leader of the Conservative Party

The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, was one of the first to throw her hat in the ring for the job of Prime Minister, following last week’s turmoil in Downing Street.

Braverman, a barrister, told ITV journalist Robert Peston, in a live interview prior to the PM’s resignation speech, she thought Johnson should step down and announced her intention to stand for the leadership. However, she has continued in her role. The field of leadership candidates was due to be whittled to two this week.

Solicitor General, Alex Chalk and Justice ministers, barrister Victoria Atkins and former entrepreneur James Cartlidge were among more than 50 members of the government to resign, as Conservative MPs struggled to persuade Johnson to leave office last week.

Chalk has since been replaced by former family law barrister Edward Timpson while Atkins has been replaced by non-lawyer Tom Pursglove. Legal aid minister Cartlidge has been replaced by Stuart Andrew, who was a housing minister before resigning last week. Two under secretaries of state have also joined the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)―barrister Sarah Dines, previously an assistant whip before resigning last week, and Simon Baynes, who will perform the role jointly at the MoJ and Home Office.

Timpson said: ‘One of my first priorities is to continue the government’s work in rebuilding confidence in our criminal justice system—particularly for victims.’

Dominic Raab continued in his joint role of Lord Chancellor and deputy PM.

Christopher Bellamy, a Peer, who chaired the Criminal Legal Aid Review and was appointed in June as under secretary of state at the MoJ, has continued in his role as justice spokesperson in the House of Lords.

Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

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

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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll