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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
back-to-top-scroll