header-logo header-logo

05 August 2016 / Michael Roberts , Giles Hutt
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , Environment , CPR
printer mail-detail

Under pressure

nlj_7710_hutt

Will the streamlining of appeal procedure make England and Wales a more or less attractive forum for litigation than it is now, ask Michael Roberts & Giles Hutt

In May 2016 the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) published a consultation paper containing proposals aimed at streamlining the appeal process and reducing the time it takes for cases to reach the Court of Appeal. Responses were called for by 24 June, just five weeks after the consultation opened, and the resulting new rules (CPR Pt 52) were published the following month. They will come into force on 3 October 2016.

Given the importance of the appeal process, it is disappointing that stakeholders were not allowed more time to respond to the CPRC’s proposals, which appeared to have been blessed already by the Court of Appeal at a conference on 11 March 2016. However, the problems they address are serious and urgent: hear-by targets had to be extended in July 2015, and delays are increasing all the time. The proposals were in any case well thought through,

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