header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Controversy on experts, matrimonialisation & counting words

26 July 2024
Issue: 8081 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Family , Expert Witness , Civil way
printer mail-detail
Judges are urged to keep it brief, former district judge Stephen Gold writes in this week’s Civil way

The reason is the cost of obtaining a transcript will depend on the length measured by the number of folios.

Gold explains the situation more fully in his column, and advises that litigators thinking of putting in a request for brevity ‘try out this direction at your next case management conference and see whether you get your Green Book slapped’.

Gold also covers reductions to the special account interest rate as well as recent case law on ‘matrimonialisation’, and raises an alert on the single joint expert.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll