Partner Content

It has been a draining few weeks for the Criminal Bar. For many months before, both barristers and solicitors stood side by side, in a unity I have never known, to fight the savage cuts to legal aid which this Government seemed determined to push through. It is worth dwelling for a moment upon that determination. Expressed over this protracted and intense campaign in the most trenchant terms both in negotiation and in public, Chris Grayling and his spokes people, notably Bob Neill, a barrister at 2 Bedford Row and Vice Chair of the Conservative Party aggressively criticized the Bar and its attempts to axis the dispute around access to justice.  

Nigel Lithman QC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association repeated the rallying cry of “Not a penny less” and whatever the impact of the “days of action” the no returns policy, even in its infancy was beginning to bite. Alongside this, despite the understandable occasional tensions between the two sides of the profession, the rank and file were as united as they have ever been. The court of public opinion was also beginning to get the measure of the debate. Editorials and Comment in a diverse range of newspapers were expressing the growing concern that this dispute was not so much about pay, but about a fair criminal justice system. It did not stop there. 

This article considers the legal efficacy of “no expense claim” clauses limiting liability in insolvency office-holders’ contracts and the associated risks for the counterparty.  

Office-holders in all forms of corporate insolvency proceedings are naturally keen to limit their potential exposure to liability on their contracts. In the case of administrative receivership, there is a long-standing practice of including a term excluding personal liability on the part of the receiver. This was, and is, necessary because s 44(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides that, although an administrative receiver is deemed to be the company’s agent unless and until the company goes into liquidation, he is personally liable on any contract which he enters into in the course of carrying out his functions, unless the contract otherwise provides. 

Marc Weller reports on the legality of events in Crimea.  

Crimea has voted overwhelmingly in favour of incorporation into Russia. President Vladimir Putin and the Duma, the Russian Parliament, are set to implement this result. The G-7 states and the EU have declared the referendum unlawful and consider the incorporation of Crimea a grave violation of international standards, triggering sanctions against Russian officials. 

Commercial rent arrears recovery: John Sharples asks are you ready?  

Commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) has had a long gestation. The outline of the scheme is set out in Pt 3 and Sch 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007). Its implementation however was delayed to allow consultation with interested groups. This has now happened and the result is the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1894) (TCGR 2013). They bring CRAR into effect and set out the procedure that landlords must follow.overy: John Sharples asks are you ready? 

In this article David Murphy reviews the principal risks that collateralisation brings both to the parties involved and to the financial system as a whole.  

Collateral has a central role in the post-crisis financial system. Unsecured interbank markets have declined, so secured funding transactions whether private or with central banks have become the most important conduit of liquidity to the financial system. At the same time, collateral became a key feature of the post-crisis regulatory reforms: it will be mandatory for many bilateral OTC derivatives and is already required for centrally cleared transactions. 

In November 2012, Lord Sumption observed that “The judiciary is recruited from a pool of highly educated and experienced legal practitioners. This pool is itself dominated by white males”. Coinciding with a progress report, his view was that diversity in the judiciary could take 50 years so, how was 2013 for women in the law … ? 

Many employers bemoan the employability gap between education and work. Sarah Thwaites talks about one initiative to help bridge the gap in the legal sector.  

With youth unemployment still hovering just under the one million mark, we all have a role to play in ensuring we don’t leave the next generation behind. 

Andrew Bruce discusses the recent decision in Walker & Scott v Burton & Bamford relating to rectification of the Land Register.  

Ireby (population 60) is a tiny village in Lancashire. It is situated at the highest point in Lancashire and close to the county boundary with West Yorkshire. For the past eight years it has been the site of “a rather old fashioned un-neighbourly dispute with some unusual feudal bits and some land registration bits tacked on”. This dispute culminated in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker & Scott v Burton & Bamford [2013] EWCA Civ 1228, [2013] All ER (D) 146 (Oct) on 14 October 2013. This article considers the land registration issues associated with the dispute.