header-logo header-logo

22 October 2009
Issue: 7390 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Queen spends a day in (the Supreme) Court

The Queen has officially opened Britain’s new Supreme Court, in a ceremony attended by chief justices from around the world.

Judges from more than 27 different jurisdictions attended the opening.

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were greeted by a fanfare and then introduced to staff, comtractors and artists who contributed to the project.
A legal moot was staged in Court One by students from Strode’s College, Egham, Surrey.

Jack Straw, lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice, said: “This new institution will be much more visible than the one it replaces, providing greater access to the public than ever before.

“No longer will our highest court in the land be hidden at the end of a corridor in the House of Lords, but instead members of the public will be able to walk in off the street to see for themselves the work of our senior judiciary.”
The Supreme Court began hearing cases this month.
 

Issue: 7390 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll