header-logo header-logo

Practice Direction

17 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and others [2009] EWHC 1560 (Ch); [2009] All ER (D) 58 (Jul)

A Practice Direction was binding on the court and accordingly would be recognised and applied. The only exception to that would be that the obligation might yield, in a particular case, to the exercise of case management powers under the CPR.

Where there was a conflict between the legislation and a practice direction, the legislation would prevail, but if there was no conflict then the practice direction would be applied. The regularisation of the basis upon which statutory powers or discretions were to be exercised by the court was an entirely proper function of a practice direction.

Neither did it involve an unlawful restriction or fetter on the exercise of the court’s powers because the court retained the ability to exercise its specific case management powers in a way that departed from the practice if there was a good reason to do so in a particular case

 

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll