header-logo header-logo

14 October 2016 / Richard Langley
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Swift justice?

nlj_7718_langley

Abolishing renewal hearings may tackle the appeals backlog, but at what price? Richard Langley reports

It is a truth, not universally acknowledged by the senior judiciary, that each wave of judge-led procedural reforms has involved the creation of new procedure that only serves to add to the legal costs being incurred. Costs budgeting is the most obvious recent example.

It is only fair to acknowledge therefore that we now have a reform in relation to appeals to the Court of Appeal which will remove a significant part of the appeal process and all the costs that go with it.

With effect from 3 October 2016, when an application for permission to appeal is made to the Court of Appeal, the application will be determined on paper without an oral hearing. Gone is the automatic right to have a refusal on the papers reconsidered at a hearing (known as a “renewal hearing”). In its place is a discretion to direct an oral hearing (a discretion which the judge must exercise if he or she takes the view that the

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll