A Lawyer Talks

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comThe Department for Business and Trade is currently reviewing the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, a legal structure that enables consumers to claim compensation from corporations that are accused of abusing a dominant position in the marketplace. A recent example was the claim brought against Mastercard on behalf of up to 44 million consumers by the lawyer Walter Merricks, who discussed the outcome with me on A Lawyer Talks in May.Launching a consultation two months ago, the government said:We are committed to consumer protection and want to ensure that the regime has achieved, and continues to achieve, these objectives. This government is focused on economic growth; and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.How should we calibrate the balance between corporations and consumers?Representing the consumers’ side is the Collective Redress Lawyers Association. It wants to ensure that people harmed through anti-competitive behaviour can secure compensation through the courts.Banging the drum for business is a group called Fair Civil Justice. It argues that collective actions in the courts should be a last resort, not the first port of call.Most cases settle. But how much of the compensation should go to individual consumers and how much to the lawyers and the funders without whom these cases would never get off the ground? Settling a class action originally valued at £14 billion earlier this year, Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million. But when the available balance is shared out, each consumer is expected to receive no more than £70 — and perhaps as little as £45.On the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, I discussed these issues with David Greene (pictured), senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe and a co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association. He offered a robust — but not unqualified — defence of the legal regime introduced 10 years ago.My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comIt would be “shame and a mistake” for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights, the UK’s former judge at the human rights court told me last week. Tim Eicke KC, who was elected to the court in 2016 for a nine-year-term, spoke to me from Essex Court Chambers, the barristers’ set to which he returned earlier this month. As the judge “elected in respect of Northern Ireland” — plus the rest of the UK — Eicke (pictured) said he was particularly concerned about the effect that withdrawal from the convention would have on the Belfast Good Friday agreement.He also referred to a report this month from the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, which examined how the human rights convention has been covered in the UK. According to the report — but contrary to the impression given by some media outlets — the human rights court had found against the UK in only 13 removal cases since 1980, just four of which concerned family life. In a wide-ranging interview for A Lawyer Talks, we discussed the government’s plans to limit the application of article 8 of the convention with the aim of deporting more illegal migrants. I also wanted to know why Eicke had applied for the Strasbourg job in the first place and the constraints it had imposed on his return to practice. And he explained why human rights judges from across Europe took such a close interest in the UK.My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Non-subscribers can savour a taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comThink of an international court that can stop foreign manufacturers selling pirated copies of British inventions in the UK. It’s a court whose proceedings are largely conducted in English and where UK lawyers abound. This is a court whose use of English legal principles has contributed to its success since it opened for business a couple of years ago. But its caselaw must do without the insights of British judges because the United Kingdom is not one of its 18 members. That leaves Britain as the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle, according to my guest on this week’s podcast.Rob Jackson, pictured at his office in the City of London, is a patent attorney and a partner in the intellectual property firm Dehns. The court he’s referring to is the Unified Patent Court. Why did the UK withdraw from the agreement setting up the court? Should we try to re-join? Could they let us in? How much of an advantage would that be to British businesses?Those are among the questions I asked Jackson in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Non-subscribers can savour a taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comLeaving the European Convention on Human Rights would be completely contrary to the UK’s national interests, the attorney general said yesterday.Addressing the House of Lords constitution committee, Lord Hermer KC said withdrawing from the convention — and the 46-nation Council of Europe that administers it — would be entirely counterproductive if we were seeking practical answers to irregular migration.The UK had already signed agreements with France and Germany that would “increasingly have real practical impact in addressing small boat crossings”. But it was “inconceivable that our partners would have entered into those agreements if we were not members of the Council of Europe — if we were not signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights”.Hermer confirmed that the government was looking at how article 8 of the convention, which protects private and family life, was being applied by courts in the UK. He suggested that domestic courts were not keeping up with developments at the human rights court in Strasbourg.That court’s case-law was “very permissive”, he explained:It accords states an enormous margin of appreciation as to what they can do in the asylum and immigration space. And that is something that has developed as the principle of subsidiarity. It has developed particularly over the last five or six years. And I am concerned to ensure that domestically we have kept pace with that.Some of our colleagues on the Council of Europe have, I think, more effective, more robust mechanisms that are compliant with article 8 that we need to look at. And so we are kicking the tyres hard at every level.We’re looking at caseworker guidance. Are they getting it right on Article 8?We're looking at the immigration rules, the body of secondary legislation that governs this. Have they got it right?If we need to, we will look at primary legislation to ensure that we're getting it right.And we are also adopting a very proactive litigation strategy. I when I came in, I was disturbed to learn that often Home Office officials wouldn't attend first-tier tribunal decisions — let alone was there in place what I would consider to be a fit-for-purpose litigation strategy, identifying the points that were important to the government, appealing cases that really should be appealed.So we’re changing all of that…The prime minister has, though, been absolutely crystal clear that we will not be leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Now there are a number of reasons for that. But at the heart of it is because it would be completely contrary to the national interest of this country were we to do so.Hermer’s argument was that there was no need to seek amendments to the human rights convention. These took too long to implement. The government’s priority was how article 8 was being applied by our own courts. One of the problems was “an enormous backlog in the asylum and immigration system, which we are seeking to address”I discussed Hermer’s comments during a wide-ranging interview yesterday with Sam Townend KC, a former Labour councillor who chaired the Bar Council last year. We also discussed Sir Keir Starmer’’s appointment of a new secretary of state and two new ministers at the Ministry of Justice. And we considered Baroness Harman’s review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment of barristers, which Townend set up as leader of the profession last year.Speaking to A Lawyer Talks, the former chair of the bar urged caution on replacing some jury trials by a judge and two magistrates. Townend — pictured alongside a paining of Donald Keating QC, a former head oi his chambers — also suggested ways of improving the legal profession’s regulatory structures.My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Non-subscribers can savour an hors d’oeuvre by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comIn July, a little-known body headed by the second most senior judge in England and Wales launched a public consultation on new ways of ensuring access to justice.The Online Procedure Rules Committee — chaired by the master of the rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos — was created by parliament three years ago to make rules for legal proceedings “to be initiated by electronic means”. But instead of trying to create a costly new digital court, the rules committee is trying out its powers to set standards for existing online dispute-resolution services.These services are often provided by commercial or financial organisations, alongside with online advice. But they can be hard to track down if you don’t know what you’re looking for. And if they can’t solve your problem and you need to take things further, you have to go through the whole process again and start your claim from scratch.What the legislation now allows for is the transfer of information from private dispute-resolution services to public courts and tribunals. That will be done electronically. But in order for it to work, the private pre-action services will have to talk the same language as the public courts and tribunal service. That means setting a single standard for all private dispute-resolution services to use. At its simplest, it would require all users to fill in their first name followed by surname and “1 September” rather than “September 1”.Under regulations made earlier this year, the rules committee can make rules for:* civil and tribunal proceedings in relation to property; and* family proceedings for a financial remedyThe Online Procedure Rule Committee wants to know what people think of its pre-action model and there are still a couple of weeks or so before the consultation closes. For the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, I’ve been discussing the reforms with Dr Natalie Byrom (pictured), honorary senior research fellow at UCL Laws. We discussed the Online Procedure Rule Committee — OPRC for short — as well as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR).My regular podcast series — resuming after the August break — is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Non-subscribers can savour an hors d’oeuvre by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comEncouraging your future spouse to sign an English prenuptial agreement before you marry has always been a bit of a risk — as Jenny Alzena Helliwell discovered last week. Lawyers for her former husband Simon Graham Entwistle persuaded the Court of Appeal to set their pre-nup aside because she had deliberately failed to disclose nearly three-quarters of her personal wealth.The couple’s divorce became notorious last year after Entwistle — arguing that he would now need to spend £26,000 a year on a “meal plan” — told Mr Justice Francis that he couldn’t even cook an omelette. After Entwistle had initially said that his former wife should pay £10 million to cover his financial needs, the exasperated judge awarded him £400,000 (and some culinary advice) less £75,000 costs.Will this judgment have implications for other couples who have signed pre-nups? Do they need to get them checked for material disclosure now that this one has been declared ineffective? And will Entwistle end up with egg on his face if he keeps litigating?In the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks I discuss these questions with Nicholas Bennett (pictured), a barrister who specialises in this area of family practice.My weekly podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Non-subscribers can savour an hors d’oeuvre by clicking the ► symbol above. But take out an annual subscription this week and the bill will be just £40; the yearly charge reverts to £50 on Sunday.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comDonald Trump is not the only prominent figure who may be regretting his dealings with the disgraced financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In October 2019, Barclays Bank sent a letter to the Financial Conduct Authority assuring the FCA that the bank’s chief executive, James Edward “Jes” Staley, “did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein”, who had died in prison two months earlier. Staley’s “last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays in 2015”, the letter asserted.A month ago, the Upper Tribunal tax and chancery chamber “found that Mr Staley knew, when he approved the letter, that its contents were factually inaccurate”. For that reason, it declined to interfere with the FCA’s decision in May 2023 banning Staley from performing any senior management role in regulated financial services. He had resigned from Barclays in October 2021 after being told of the FCA’s preliminary conclusions.The FCA confirmed its decision last week after Staley had run out of time to appeal. He must pay a penalty of £1.1m by next week.Should the Financial Conduct Authority punish financiers for non-financial misconduct? And what implications does this case have for other professionals — lawyers, for example, whose regulators may seek to regulate what used to be regarded as their private lives?Those are among the questions I raised in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks with David Hamilton, a partner at Howard Kennedy who specialises in financial services enforcement and compliance (pictured). We discussed whether the FCA had struck the right balance between protecting consumers and encouraging investment.My weekly podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comReforms to the way sexual assault cases are prosecuted and tried in the courts of England and Wales are recommended in a report today by the government’s reform advisers.The Law Commission’s proposals are intended to provide better protection for complainants while maintaining fair trials for defendants. For the first time, complainants would be given legal advice and representation at hearings to decide whether to disclose their personal records and evidence of their sexual behaviour.If ministers agree, reforms would be introduced to ensure that the defence could present relevant evidence without relying on rape myths and misconceptions and without causing unnecessary trauma to the complainant.For the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, I have been discussing these recommendations with Professor Penney Lewis (pictured), the criminal law commissioner responsible for the project. Our ambition was to sum up her 620-page report in a conversation of half an hour.My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com“The present way in which trials are organised, allocated and tried is no longer sustainable and, if continued, will lead to the collapse of the criminal justice system,” Sir Brian Leveson says in his report today on the criminal courts of England and Wales.Leveson was invited to carry out his review by the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood. She welcomed his 400-page report and promised to do “whatever it takes” to bring down the backlog of cases awaiting trial.Thanking the former head of criminal justice, Mahmood said, “We will now consider all his recommendations and will respond, in full, ahead of legislating in the autumn.”As expected, the former head of criminal justice is recommending that more cases should be decided by magistrates and fewer cases should tried by a judge and jury. He proposes a number of ways in which this can be achieved:* Remove the right for defendants to elect (choose) trial by jury in cases that can currently be tried either by magistrates or in the Crown Court (“ether-way cases”) and where the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.* Reclassify some either-way cases as summary only, which means they would no longer be eligible for trial in the Crown Court.* Create a new “bench division” of the Crown Court consisting of a judge and two magistrates, which could try all either-way cases and would deal with defendants expected to receive no more than three years’ imprisonment on conviction.* Allow defendants in the Crown Court to elect trial by judge alone, subject to the judge’s consent.* Require serious and complex fraud cases to be tried by judge alone.* Allow courts to direct trial by judge alone in cases of exceptional length or complexity. We discussed all these options in depth when I interviewed Leveson yesterday for the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. But we didn’t spend too much time on his recommendations for encouraging greater use of out-of-court resolutions — alternatives to prosecution — even though that part of his report had been leaked to the Daily Mail in what was seen as a classic “dead cat” distraction strategy.Initial reaction to Leveson’s proposals has not been entirely supportive — although I received a pretty dusty answer when I suggested he was taking on the entire legal establishment. To give those most affected by Leveson’s recommendations a chance to study the report — and listen to his only in-depth interview — I’ll leave coverage of the responses until tomorrow.My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comWhen parents split up, it’s often the children who suffer most. But over the past three years or so, family judges have quietly developed an entirely new way of focusing on the most vulnerable members of a family. Rather than being litigant-led, it’s child-led.To find out how the Pathfinder scheme works — and why it’s not available in large parts of England — I dropped in yesterday to interview the most senior family judge in England and Wales. For the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the High Court family division, told me about what he and his fellow judges regard as the future of private family law. My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comCritics who imagine that we can secure our borders against migrants simply by leaving the European convention on human rights have overlooked another major international agreement that the UK signed at around the same time.The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, gives important rights to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own countries. In particular, refugees must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.Speaking in the House of Lords on 2 June, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC (pictured) said that at the time the convention was agreed in 1951 there were thought to be around 2.1 million refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Last year, according to the UNHCR, there were no fewer than 43.7 million refugees.The former director of public prosecutions said:It is in the light of the changes since 1951 that I believe the rubric of the refugee convention must be considered. It says that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution in their place of abode is entitled under the convention to asylum when they arrive in a contracting state, but that characterisation applies to literally tens of millions of people worldwide and may plausibly be claimed by tens of millions more.Macdonald suggested that the UK might need to “revisit” the refugee convention. But how could that be done? And what might happen if we don’t?Those are among the questions I put to him yesterday when we recorded the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks.My regular podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comIn recent weeks we’ve seen cyber attacks on bodies such as the Legal Aid Agency and companies such as Marks & Spencer. But many other attacks are simply not made public. How should organisations defend themselves against risks to their data? And should they pay ransom demands in the hope of getting it back?These are among the questions I have been discussing on the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks with James Moss, director of cyber investigations at the international law form Addleshaw Goddard (pictured). He’s a former director of enforcement at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which, as he explains, is expected to take on new powers and responsibilities under the government’s planned Cyber Security and Resilience bill. Ministers are also considering whether to ban some ransom payments — a proposal that, as he explained, may prove controversial.My podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

What impact has English common law had on the legal system of Israel? That’s the question Lord Pannick KC discussed yesterday with Dorit Beinisch, president of the Supreme Court of Israel from 2006 to 2012.The answer turned out to be considerable. During the British mandate period, there were appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. For decades after Israel’s independence in 1948, Israeli lawyers relied on used well-worn English textbooks — Salmond, Wade, De Smith — and cited leading English precedents. Senior judges from the United Kingdom often referred to Israeli cases during the years when there were regular exchanges between the two jurisdictions. The leading barrister and the former judge were in conversation at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as part of the Lionel Cohen lecture series — established in 1953 to honour Lord Cohen of Walmer, a law lord from 1951 to 1961. The discussion, attended by two of Cohen’s grandsons, marked the 75th anniversary of the university’s law faculty; the Hebrew University itself is celebrating its centenary this year.Although Pannick led the discussion, he also answered questions from Israeli judges and academics at the seminar who demanded his insights on aspects of English law and on cases he had appeared in. Beinisch particularly admired Pannick’s success in persuading the UK Supreme Court to overturn Boris Johnson’s attempt to prorogue parliament for five weeks in 2019 — the sort of decision that she thought her own court would not have been brave enough to take.It was a fascinating discussion on many levels — there was discussion of judicial appointments, checks and balances, Gouriet v HM Attorney General — and you can hear it by clicking the ► symbol above.* Sorry that some of the questions from the floor are a bit hard to hear. Comments are disabled for this piece.A Lawyer Writes is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rozenberg.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comThe Parole Board should increase the number of public hearings it holds each year, an internal review has recommended. It’s one of the ways that the board hopes to achieve greater public understanding of its work.The Parole Board is an independent body whose members make judicial decisions on whether people who have committed serious offences or who are assessed as potentially dangerous need to stay in prison for the protection of the public.But the public have little idea of how panels of board members question prisoners and assess risk. Some people think the Parole Board has a say in all prisoner releases; others believe it can shorten sentences passed by the courts. But neither is true and the review suggests that greater openness can reduce allegations of secret justice.It was carried out by Peter Rook KC (pictured), who’s vice-chair and the senior judicial member of the Parole Board, and Michael Topolski KC, who’s also a senior member of the board; both are former Old Bailey judges.Thanking them for their report, the board’s chief executive Cecilia French said it had made great strides in becoming more transparent over the years but was keen to do more. “The transparency review highlights the key areas we should focus on to further progress our transparency agenda,” she added. “I am looking forward to implementing the recommendations in this review.”For the latest episode of my podcast A Lawyer Talks, I asked Rook about the review’s findings. As a general rule, he explained, parole hearings would remain private. But he hoped the board would find new ways of helping the public to understand its work. Rook referred to the judiciary’s transparency and open justice board whose chair, Mr Justice Nicklin, gave a lecture in Oxford last night that I plan to cover shortly.My podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comIt would be “constitutionally improper” for ministers to comply with treaty obligations if that would mean ignoring laws made by parliament, the shadow attorney general said yesterday. Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC (pictured) was responding to allegations by Lord Hermer KC, the government’s senior law officer, that the Conservative front-bencher had adopted a “pick-and-mix approach, in which states can sometimes justifiably refuse to comply with their international legal obligations when they judge it not to be in their national interests to do so”.In an interview for my podcast A Lawyer Talks, Wolfson said that ministers would always seek to comply with international law if they were able to do so. But, he continued:a minister has to abide by an act of parliament and it would be constitutionally improper, I would suggest, for the minister to say, “I’m going to ignore what an act of parliament says in order to comply with a treaty obligation”.In truth, he claimed, the Labour government was itself taking a pick-and-mix approach to international law. “We do — under this government and under previous governments — legislate, for example, contrary to double-taxation treaties,” Wolfson said. “We do put in place tariffs which are contrary to the WTO [World Trade Organisation].”Wolfson has known Hermer for 30 years and they have a great deal in common — apart from their politics. The shadow attorney general’s declared aim is always to “play the ball and not the man”. Listen to A Lawyer Talks and hear whether he succeeded — particularly when I asked Wolfson about Hermer’s references to Carl Schmitt.Here’s a short glossary for non-specialists:* a fortiori all the more so* purdah period between election announcement and formation of new government* spad minister’s special adviser* sui generis unique* “thick” or “thin” rule of law conceptMy somewhat irregular podcast series — there will be another one tomorrow — is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comLawyers for the families of 29 military and civilian intelligence specialists who were killed when an RAF Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 have said they will “consider all legal options” to find out how their relatives died. They have launched a campaign seeking answers and accountability.Around the time of the 30th anniversary of the disaster last June, the families discovered that Ministry of Defence records had unexpectedly been sealed for a further 70 years. They are calling for a judge-led public inquiry to assess the available evidence. Their solicitor Mark Stephens CBE, from the law firm Howard Kennedy, argued that there could no longer be any operational need for secrecy.The military helicopter was carrying passengers from Northern Ireland to a conference in Scotland. One of those on board was Lt Col John Tobias MBE, 41, an army intelligence officer.His son Andy was eight at the time. Andy Tobias (pictured) told me this week why he thought the prime minister’s commitment to a duty of candour for public bodies meant the families should finally discover whether their loved ones had boarded an aircraft that others knew was not fit to fly.You can hear our discussion in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My regular podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comMillions of consumers will each be able to claim compensation of between £45 and £70 after the Competition Appeal Tribunal gave its approval yesterday to the settlement of long-running litigation against Mastercard.The credit card company agreed to pay £200 million in settlement of a class action originally valued at £14 billion, thought to be the largest claim ever litigated in the courts of England and Wales.Compensation will be available to as many as 44 million adult consumers who bought goods in UK shops that accepted Mastercard between 1992 and 2008. Crucially, it is not confined to people who used Mastercard or any other credit card for their purchases. A claim form will be published online in the coming weeks.The class of claimants was represented throughout by Walter Merricks CBE (pictured yesterday at his lawyers’ office in London). He told me yesterday why the claim had been brought and why he had settled for less than 1.4% of its original value.He also told me about his fears and feelings on being sued by his own litigation funders, Innsworth Capital, who opposed the settlement. In an unprecedented move, Mastercard offered to pay Merricks up to £10 million to defend him against the threat of being bankrupted by Innsworth.The litigation funder will be repaid the £45.5 million it has invested in Merrick’s legal fees plus an additional 50%.Its managing director Ian Garrard said it would receive a return of less than 15% of what it described as the £150 million surplus, despite taking all the risk.“We do not think it is a reasonable division of the proceeds, or one that will do anything to encourage investors to fund other opt-out collective actions,” he said. “We are therefore considering all of our options, including asking the courts to look again at this matter.”A spokesperson for Innsworth added: “Innsworth has at all times acted in accordance with its rights and obligations under the litigation funding agreement. There are no findings regarding Innsworth’s conduct in the judgment.”Some idea of the complexity of the case can be seen from the tribunal’s reference to the claimant’s “Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-Amended Reply” and his “Re-Re-Amended Claim Form”.Merricks spoke to me exclusively yesterday for A Lawyer Talks. My regular podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comOffenders serving between one and four years who have been released from prison on licence and then recalled for breaching their licence conditions will generally be freed after a further 28 days, the justice secretary announced yesterday. At present, release is a matter for the Parole Board.It’s the latest attempt by Shabana Mahmood to keep prisoner numbers within the maximum that the prisons can hold and is expected to reduce the prison population by about 1,400. The number of recalled prisoners rose from 6,000 in 2018 to 13,600 this year. In 1993 it was no more than 100.Mahmood said the impact of sentencing reforms to be recommended shortly by the former justice secretary David Gauke would not be felt before next spring. Her junior minister Sarah Sackman told me on Tuesday that the criminal court reforms proposed by the former judge Sir Brian Leveson might also take a year to implement.In an interview for my podcast A Lawyer Talks, the courts minister spoke frankly about the government’s planned legislation and its options for reform. They include reclassifying offences as summary only — so defendants charged with some types of theft could no longer insist on jury trial — and allowing more serious cases to be tried by a judge and two magistrates or even by a judge sitting alone.But will Sackman persuade the public that jury trial needs to be curtailed when some imagine that it was guaranteed by Magna Carta? Listen to the interview and you be the judge.A Lawyer Talks is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above. Some of the interview has been reported by the Daily Telegraph.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com“The independent judiciary — the cornerstone of the rule of law — is an integral part of what the UK has to offer to the world,” the lady chief justice of England and Wales said last night.Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill was addressing a court-full of senior judges and international visitors about the judiciary’s new five-year strategy for international engagement.“The pre-eminent reputation of the UK in international diplomacy is of course well-known,” she continued.“Perhaps less well-known is the extensive work of the judiciary of England and Wales to support these efforts through judicial diplomacy. Members of the judiciary have for many years been leading participants in international judicial organisations and the providers of training, mentoring, support and guidance to judges in many jurisdictions across the world.”Last year, on a budget of £169,000, the judiciary had: * engaged with 52 countries and a dozen international associations,* welcomed more than 100 judges based in countries from Albania to Ukraine,* delivered, through the Judicial College, over 400 hours of training, both online and overseas, on topics such as case management,vulnerable witnesses, judgment-writing and judicial ethics; and * launched online peer-to-peer mentoring scheme for overseas judges to connect with judges in the UK.Judges also ensured that the UK was a centre of excellence for international commerce and finance. The law of England and Wales, Carr said, was the law of choice for international trade. As a result, the legal services sector made an enormous contribution to the UK economy, with revenues for legal services of about £37 billion in 2023 and rising.The lady chief justice continued: The judiciary provides critical underpinning for this productivity. It provides the quality of judgments which underpin the world-leading reputation of English law, particularly commercial law. It provides the flexibility and efficiency of procedure that make the Business and Property Courts the gold standard worldwide — and in troubled times gold standards are ever more important. It provides the predictability of outcomes that are the essential tools of the trade for our law firms, barristers, arbitrators and mediators…The independence of the judiciary of England and Wales provides a cornerstone guarantee to international investors that the rules upon which they assess risk and make their investment decisions will be honoured.Carr thanked Lord Justice Dingemans, who served until recently as the lead judge for international relations. He spoke about the work done by UK judges with experience of war crimes trials to train Ukrainian judges who might have to try Russian soldiers. The training has taken place. in Poland for safety reasons.Dingemans also spoke about training judges in Albania, a country where judicial corruption was endemic until a decade ago.The lady chief justice then introduced Lord Justice Snowden (pictured) as the new lead international relations judge. Although serving judges rarely give media interviews these days, Snowden agreed to take part in my podcast A Lawyer Talks. I asked him about the judiciary’s international engagement strategy, summarised in a paper published today.My regular podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.comJonathan Fisher KC is to conduct an independent review of fraud offences, the Home Office confirmed this week. A leading specialist in financial and corporate crime at Red Lion Chambers, Fisher was originally commissioned by the Conservative government in October 2023 to conduct a two-stage review of disclosure — the issue at the heart of the Post Office Horizon scandal — and fraud. Fisher’s report on disclosure was published last month and part 2 of the review was launched by the Home Office on Tuesday.It’s the first independent review of fraud law to be launched in more than 40 years. Since Lord Roskill’s report was published in 1986, online fraudsters have learnt how to target anyone with a computer or smartphone. What can be done about this threat to us all?I met Fisher yesterday to discuss the new fraud inquiry as well as his disclosure report. You can hear our conversation in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks.My regular podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.