header-logo header-logo

16 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judges give verdict on pay

Judicial Attitude Survey highlights significant disatisfaction

Judges have complained of deteriorating buildings, poor IT support, and low morale among court staff, according to the latest Judicial Attitude Survey.

More than half have concerns for their personal safety while in court, and more than one third are concerned for their safety outside of court, while 15% have concerns related to social media.

Some 78% have had a loss of net earnings in the past two years, and 62% have been personally affected by the change in pensions. Both of these issues have had a detrimental effect on morale.

The results did not bode well for the future—more than a third want to retire early during the next five years, and a further 23% are undecided. The judges identified two main factors as likely to sway them to leave the judiciary early, further limits on pay awards and reductions in pension benefits. However, 57% said an increase in workload might prompt them to leave, and more than half cited further demands for out of hours work, stressful conditions at work and reduction in administrative support as possible spurs for an early retirement.

Conversely, higher remuneration, a settled position on pensions and better administrative support would keep them in post, according to 80%, 57% and 56% of the judges, respectively. Judicial salaries range from £107,100 to £249,583.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas said: “The quality of the judiciary underpins the rule of law and the continued success of our legal services market nationally and internationally. We are therefore extremely grateful to those who took part in the survey, which assists the SSRB in making evidence-based recommendations to government on judicial pay.”

Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
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