header-logo header-logo

14 December 2011
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Rolls-Royce of courts?

“World-leading” court complex launches on London’s Fetter Lane

The world’s largest court centre for financial, business and property disputes officially opened for business on London’s Fetter Lane last week.

The Rolls Building is home to the commercial court, the chancery division, patent court, and the technology and construction court. It covers more than 16,000 square metres,and houses 31 courtrooms, 11 hearing rooms and 55 consultation rooms.

It is decked out with state-of-the-art IT equipment and has three “supercourts” for complex, multi-party trials.

London has developed a global reputation in the field of dispute resolution—more international and commercial arbitrations take place in the capital under English law than in any other city in the world, and 90% of commercial cases handled by London law firms involve an international party.

Last month, the Ministry of Justice and legal professional groups including the Law Society and the Bar Council, launched the “Unlocking Disputes” campaign, to promote London as the world’s leading dispute resolution centre, in which the Rolls Building will play a key part.

Michael Todd QC, incoming chairman of the Bar, says: “It provides a world-leading court complex which emphasises the strength and quality of our judiciary and legal services providers.”

However, James Wilson, managing editor, legal journals and magazines, LexisNexis, says the “cramped size” and layout of the courtrooms makes it difficult for law reporters and the press to gain access during hearings.

“It is true that the first instance specialist courts attract less press and public interest, but this is not always the case, as indeed the Berezovsky v Abramovich litigation currently proceeding in the commercial court illustrates,” he says.

“More to the point, many cases of legal significance are heard in the first instance courts, and practitioners are anxious to know about new points of law and procedure as soon as possible.”

Issue: 7494 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll