header-logo header-logo

A work in progress

28 February 2014 / David Burrows
Issue: 7596 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
web_burrows_1

In an exclusive series David Burrows puts the new family court under scrutiny & assesses its ability to deliver justice

The 70 years since the end of World War 2 have seen the rate of family breakdown—or the liberalisation of family relationships—increase dramatically; and yet England and Wales have a court structure designed still to deal, mostly, with the trickle of divorces which the courts saw in 1859. That underlying position—a court structure derived from 1859—will not alter with the proposed new family court. That court is due to come into operation towards the end of April.

The administrative reform (seen from a Ministry of Justice perspective) is defined—some might say a little ignominiously—by Sch 10 to Crime and Courts Act 2013, which adds ss 31B–31P to the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. No legislation (properly so called: Guidance has been issued) subsidiary to those sections has been made. That said, all is not entirely quiet on the administration front: a variety of guidance and direction has been issued and “mandatory” draft

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll