header-logo header-logo

03 March 2023
Issue: 8015 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: What the FPR & CPR have in common

113330
Two rulebooks, both alike in dignity, in fair England’s courts, where we lay our scene.

Consistency and clarity are generally considered useful attributes. So why do we have separate rules for civil proceedings and family proceedings? Could it be made less confusing? Solicitor advocate and NLJ columnist David Burrows covers the many areas of overlap and investigates the reasons for the existence of two sets of rules, CPR and FPR, in this week’s NLJ.

Burrows looks in particular at disclosure and open justice, identifying some room for improvement. On disclosure, for example, he writes that ‘a litigant in person and many practising family lawyers… will inevitably be confused by the gaps in the rules’.

On anonymity, he writes: ‘A ragged uncertainty swirls around anonymity. Family lawyers do not have a nice simple list like that in CPR 39.2(3) above. Whyever not?’ 

See Burrows's article here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll