header-logo header-logo

16 April 2015
Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Keeping an eye on party pledges

What impact could the General Election result have on the UK legal landscape?

Lawyers are keeping a close eye on manifesto pledges by the main parties in the run up to the 7 May General Election.

The Conservatives have promised to scrap the Human Rights Act, and replace it with a Bill of Rights. They claim ditching the link between the UK’s courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and making the UK Supreme Court the highest court of human rights in the UK, would end the “mission creep” of human rights law. This proposal, announced last year, led the Labour Party to obtain a legal opinion from two Matrix Chambers QCs, who described it as “wholly unworkable, legally contradictory and inherently inconsistent”.

The party also pledges to continue with its courts modernisation and legal aid reform programmes, which have proved controversial so far among lawyers, with the judiciary and legal professional bodies opposed to plans to increase civil court fees by as much as 600%.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to review the proposed civil court fee rises if in government. If the fee increases do go ahead, Law Society president Andrew Caplen has said the legal professional bodies will not pursue a judicial review but will “closely monitor their impact” and gather case studies to continue the campaign.

Labour has also pledged to abolish the employment tribunal fees system, claiming new charges of up to £1,200 introduced in July 2013 have blocked access to justice in many cases.

The party’s headline promise to end tax breaks for non-domiciled residents (non-doms) has proved controversial. Non-doms can choose whether to pay tax on overseas earnings but must, if they have lived here for seven years, pay an annual fee of £30,000-£90,000. Peter Vaines, tax partner at Squire Patton Boggs, says: “This cannot sensibly be categorised as a loophole by any stretch of the imagination.

“It is exactly how the law has always been intended to work—and the UK has benefited very substantially as a result. Many other countries just have a different name for it, taxing people on local source income and not on foreign income.”

Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll