header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 January 2019 / Brice Dickson
Issue: 7824 / Categories: Features , Profession , In Court
printer mail-detail

Supreme justice: a year in review

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Brice Dickson outlines the Supreme Court highlights for 2018
 
  • Personnel, appeals and dissent.
  • Appearances and judgments.

In the last 16 months the composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly. Of the 12 Justices in post on 30 September 2017, only six remain there today: Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge. They have a collective experience of 52 years’ service in the country’s top court, Lady Hale alone having been there for 15 years. Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs replaced Lord Toulson, Lord Neuberger and Lord Clarke during October 2017. Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin replaced Lord Mance (Lady Arden’s husband) and Lord Hughes in October 2018. This month Lord Sales has replaced Lord Sumption, who retired in December 2018. When Lord Mance retired, the position of deputy president was granted to Lord Reed.

All being well there should be no changes in personnel during 2019, but Lady

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