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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll