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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll