header-logo header-logo

03 April 2008
Issue: 7315 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Statwatch

News

Serious Crime Act 2007 (Commencement No 2 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions and Savings) Order 2008 (SI 2008/755) Commences 1 April 2008 and 6 April 2008. Commences provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2007 on 1 April 2008 which relate to the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency and its director. Article 3 relates to the transfer of functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to Pt 5 (civil recovery), Pt 6 (revenue), Pt 8 (investigations) and s 3 (accreditation and training of civilian financial investigators). It ensures that the cases of the agency or its director in relation to those matters will be continued by specified successors. The successors are the National Policing Improvement Agency in relation to accreditation and training of civilian financial investigators and the Serious Organised Crime Agency for all other cases. Article 4 relates to the cases being dealt with by the Agency and its Director in relation to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It ensures that those cases will be continued by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Brings into force certain provisions relating to serious crime prevention orders, certain amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and an extension of powers of stop and search.

 

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Commencement No 3) Order 2008 (SI 2008/749) Commences 6 April 2008. Brings the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s 141 into force on 6 April 2008. Section 141 relates to judicial review; it substitutes the existing section 31(5) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and extends the power of the High Court in respect of quashing orders. The High Court will have the power to substitute its own decision for the decision of a court or tribunal in certain circumstances: where the decision maker is a court or tribunal, the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law and if the High Court is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reached.

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