header-logo header-logo

08 December 2021
Issue: 7960 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Disclosure
printer mail-detail

Business at the Commercial Court

Concerns about time estimates and urgency were raised at the latest Commercial Court user group meeting

Mrs Justice Cockerill said there were still too many cases which provide either inaccurate hearing or reading times (or both), at the meeting las month, according to the minutes. Cockerill J stressed that cases which err badly in this regard will be stood out of the list and are likely to be relisted without any expedition and the costs of the second hearing disallowed. She urged court users to think carefully about this and look carefully at any upcoming hearings.

Cockerill J expressed concern that the question of whether or not a case is urgent is not always considered carefully. She highlighted that if urgency is not properly explained then there is a ‘real risk’ the judge will say the case is not urgent. However, she pointed out that having grounds to proceed without notice does not equal urgency.

On the role of virtual and hybrid hearings, she told the meeting the current position is seen as a good operational position. Currently, the default is that anything on a Friday and anything half a day or less will be heard remotely. Everything else is a judicial decision. This allowed for ‘more flexibility’ in the process, she said.

Simmons & Simmons partner Ed Crosse updated the meeting on the disclosure pilot, which has been extended until the end of 2022 to allow amendments to bed in. He said the next step is further consultation, with one specifically with the judiciary due to begin soon.

Crosse said the pilot aims to reduce complexity, and acknowledged this process is tricker in multi-party cases. He emphasised the importance of engaging with any docketed judge at an early stage to work out what needs to be done for each specific case. 

Issue: 7960 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Disclosure
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll