header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 January 2025 / Brice Dickson
Issue: 8100 / Categories: Features , In Court , Profession
printer mail-detail

Reflections on the Supreme Court in 2024

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
203853
Justice reigns supreme: Brice Dickson rounds up the work of the Supreme Court justices in 2024
  • The Supreme Court’s composition, judgments delivered, and topics covered in 2024.

There were no changes to the complement of Supreme Court justices during 2024 and none of the 12 is due to be replaced during 2025. Lord Hodge, the deputy president, has let it be known that he will retire at the end of 2025, even though he will then be only 72, two and a half years short of the compulsory retirement age. Lord Richards is required to retire by June 2026, when he reaches 75. It is to be hoped that at least one of the replacement justices in 2026 will be female, since at present there are only two women on the court. Lord Reed, the president of the court, has already served for longer than anyone else (12 years) and can, if he wishes, continue in post until 2031.

In 2024 four judges from the supplementary panel

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll