header-logo header-logo

12 January 2018 / David Burrows
Issue: 7776 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

President as judge & law reformer

nlj_7775_morris_0

David Burrows reviews Sir James Munby’s tenure as president & his impact on family law

I yield to no-one in my admiration for Sir James Munby P as a lawyer. The litany of his case law developments is brilliant. However, while the President, who is due to step down later in the year, is responsible for procedural reform, he is not—or should not be—a law reformer. Judicial duties sit uneasily with law reform. Judges reform the law incrementally (as Lord Bingham explains in Rule of law (2010)) by deciding cases which come before them.

Sir James’s assertion that family lawyers have seen the ‘largest reform of the family justice system’ on his watch does not, I am afraid, hold up (see ‘Family law: plus ca change?’). Those of us who witnessed the introduction of Children Act 1989 and its accompanying family proceedings rules; the ‘pilot scheme’ for ancillary relief; and the drip-drip feed of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 principles (especially of case management) into family law saw a

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll