header-logo header-logo

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

A work in progress

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

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
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll