header-logo header-logo

24 April 2008
Issue: 7318 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Reprimanded judge keeps job

News

A judge whose behaviour was adjudged by the Court of Appeal as “wholly inappropriate” when he took part in “extraordinary” exchanges in court, has received an official reprimand. Mr Justice Peter Smith was reported to the Office for Judicial Complaints after showing “undoubted animosity” towards a party in a case before him. The furore arose after a case involving Addleshaw Goddard came before him and he was asked to stand down since the law firm had previously rejected him for a job. The judge, however, refused. Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, and two other appeal judges in Howell & Others v Lees Millais & Others, ruled that Peter Smith J had got “carried away”, had shown “undoubted animosity” and was “intemperate” in the way he handled the application for him to stand down. The judge, the appeal court ruled, should have recused himself.

A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office confirms that following the investigation under the Judicial Discipline Regulations 2006, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice had concluded that the judge’s conduct amounted to misconduct. “As a result, the Lord Chief Justice has issued a reprimand to the judge,” he says.

Lord Phillips says:

 

“Both I and the Lord Chancellor value the services of Mr Justice Peter Smith and he has my full confidence.”

 

Louis Flannery, a partner at Howes Percival, says one would hope that Peter Smith J would not be too surprised to have received a reprimand for his conduct in the case.

 

“Although some may have expected him to resign, he did not do so, and is still sitting regularly. Along with his reprimand, he has had the express endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, so I think a line has indeed been drawn and that he will want to put the whole experience behind him.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll