header-logo header-logo

29 October 2021
Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Civil way
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Gold for value

Trial durations are overestimated, according to research among members of the judiciary, former District Judge Stephen Gold writes in this week’s ‘Civil way’.

This may lead to CPR change. Gold also recounts a tale of debt and debtor, and a case of a contract found to be so confusing that the judge released one of the parties from their obligations.

Last but not least, pandemic guidance for judges comes under Gold’s scrutiny. He notes that it is easier ‘to skive off from the study to the gym than out of the court building back door’. 

Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Civil way
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll