header-logo header-logo

08 October 2021 / David Burrows
Issue: 7951 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Reflections on the Burrows amendment…

60014
David Burrows charts the highs & lows of the ‘Ancillary relief pilot scheme’ 25 years on
  • Looks at the main aspects of the financial relief procedural scheme and how it has fared since its introduction.
  • A well-run financial dispute resolution, overseen by an experienced district judge, can work. Massive amounts of much-needed court time, and the parties’ resources, could be saved.

‘We call it “the Burrows amendment”’, said the Lord Chancellor, Lord McKay, as we sat at a roundtable—him, six civil servants from the Lord Chancellor’s Department (now Ministry of Justice) and me. It was late November 1996. The ‘amendment’ was Civil Procedure Act 1997, Sch 1, para 7, which says the following:

‘Different provision for different cases etc.

7. The power to make Civil Procedure Rules includes power to make different provision for different cases or different areas, including different provision—

(a) for a specific court or specific division of a court, or

(b) for specific proceedings, or a specific jurisdiction,

specified in the rules.’

The Lord Chancellor

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