Features

The Lord Chancellor’s attitude to public interest litigation threatens the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers,  
writes Sir Stephen Sedley.  

In 1916 the secretary of the Anti-German Union, Sir George Makgill, brought judicial review proceedings to remove from the Privy Council two wealthy Jewish philanthropists; Sir Ernest Cassel (who had actually converted to Catholicism) and Sir Edgar Speyer, on the ground that, although both were British subjects, they were not British-born. 

Britain is making a bid to become the next global centre of Islamic finance, with preparations under way for a £200m bond-like sukuk issue. Scott Morrison explains the background.  

Last October and for the first time, the UK hosted the World Islamic Economic Forum. Prime Minister David Cameron took the opportunity to promote Islamic banking and finance in the UK, advancing London as a centre that would “stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world”. Specifically Mr Cameron announced preparations under way at HM Treasury to issue “a bond-like sukuk worth around £200m”, expected either this year or next. 

Alex Glassbrook reports on the Advocacy Training Council’s work in Zimbabwe and finds encouraging signs of judicial independence, an active Law Society and a reinvigorated Bar.  

“Our quest for the rule of law has nothing to do with politics as all we want is the same legal system, the same standards, for whoever appears before the courts, regardless of their political affiliation.” 

Beatrice Mtetwa  

As a child I was given a short book written by the late Mr Justice Darling – a man who was known for his judicial wit, although his Spy pen-portrait bore the unkind legend “Judicial Lightweight”. I had high hopes of this book of legal gems. Alas, it was the dullest book I ever read with all his anecdotes, quips and aphorisms falling flat. It now lives in our lavatory for what my dear mama, when we were little, used to call “struggles”.  

Darling is not alone, however. With noble exceptions, the written anecdotes of lawyers are deeply dull. The reason is that we live in an oral tradition, whatever those civil practitioners and sillies who dreamt up the Criminal Procedural Rules think: a world where stories are told and retold in robing rooms, chambers and wine bars. A very great character in Silk when I was a young barrister, called Barry, despite it being none of his given names nor any recognised foreshortening of them, once paid me the honour of telling me the story I had told him six hours earlier about a case of mine but with Barry now in the title role – quite oblivious of the irony. The characters in these stories come to life because we knew them or know them still or, at the least, knew or know of them. 

In his last column, Toby Craig reports on an action-packed month in Westminster and the deal with the criminal Bar.  

If a week is a long time in politics, then four years in Westminster can seem an eternity. Having penned WW for almost that long, this column shall be my 46th and my last. More on that later; but there have been few months as action-packed as this one, so it is as good as any on which to exit. A budget, TV debates, a cabinet resignation and finally, a breakthrough on legal aid and that’s before we get to the House of Lords’ 155-page report on soft power. Never let it be said WW scrimps on the detail. 

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? 

Toby Craig contemplates the familiar story behind the recent further reductions to the criminal legal budget.  

And so, on 27 February, after months of consultation, discussion and protest, the Government announced its final intention further to reduce criminal legal aid. This comes on top of the swingeing cuts to civil legal aid, implemented through LASPO last year.