The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is seeking views on proposals to clarify the rules where court hearings are held in private or where there are reporting restrictions in place. The amendments, first proposed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, would affect Part 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), ‘Miscellaneous provisions relating to hearings’. They would widen the definition of a ‘hearing’ to take account of any technological developments, introduce new rules for parties communicating with the court, and supplement the provision of transcripts. The survey, ‘Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes’, is available on the MoJ website. The deadline is 23 August 2018.
18 July 2018
Views sought on CPR clarification
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch
Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice
Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr
Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown
Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team
NEWS
NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)
NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
