header-logo header-logo

02 February 2024
Issue: 8057 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , In Court
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: A year at the Supreme Court

156465
From nosy neighbours at the Tate to the employment rights of Deliveroo riders, the Supreme Court justices tackled a multitude of significant cases last year

In this week’s NLJ, Brice Dickson, Emeritus Professor of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, surveys the work of the Supreme Court in 2023.

The court ruled in 52 cases—one for every week of the year. Dickson crunches the numbers and digs into the data to find out which courts dispatched the most appeals, which areas of law were covered most (tax), and what was the most contentious case. His review highlights the many clarifications of the law, and notes the changes in personnel.

But who wrote the most judgments? Who dissented? Who sat in the most cases? And what important and significant decisions were made? 

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