Between half a day and four days is a good length of time for a hearing by a top court, according to Lord Neuberger. Delivering the Bar Council Annual Law Reform Lecture this week, he said the majority of hearings last between four hours and two days, and “we normally do pretty well”. In contrast, a House of Lords appeal could last 20 days in the 1980s, while the US Supreme Court, and Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts hardly ever allow advocates more than half an hour.
23 November 2016
Perfect time for a trial
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Birketts—Nathan Evans
Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire
Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta
Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department
Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale
Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
