header-logo header-logo

No quick fix

09 March 2012 / David Burrows
Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Family , Property
printer mail-detail

Family law reform should be handled with care advises David Burrows

Sarah Whitten commented on the Family Justice Review (2011) (FJR), and on the government response (“A job for life”, NLJ, 17 February 2012, p 237). She urged swift response. Yes, but the review must be seen in a much wider context, of procedural and legal aid reform to the whole spectrum of family proceedings. Rushed through, they risk being a politician’s part answer, which often means bad law-making. A little time taken—a few months only—can yield a more effective system. A number of questions, not addressed in the report (especially concerning family proceedings other than children proceedings) need to be answered; and the inquisitorial-adversarial debate is not touched, as far as I can see.

Defining terms

First, it is important to define terms. “Family proceedings” generally means proceedings assigned to the Family Division. Most family lawyers would see “family law” as covering any case which arises on family breakdown (married and unmarried families) and where a local authority becomes involved

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll