info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
Contempt of Court – new rules

Contempt of Court – new rules

by Paul M | Oct 10, 2020 | Comment, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

Following an earlier consultation, there has been a comprehensive rewriting of the rules of court dealing with the procedure to be adopted in relation to contempt of court. There are new rules in effect from 1 October 2020 in both the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and...
Has the revolution happened? Can we ever go back?

Has the revolution happened? Can we ever go back?

by Paul M | Aug 25, 2020 | Consultations, Transparency News, Trends

The Lord Chief Justice called it “the biggest pilot project that the justice system has ever seen” and said “there will be no going back to February 2020”. Remote court hearings would have come sooner or later, but thanks to Covid-19 they came at us fast, in March...
Another recusal refusal – but this time the Court of Appeal steps in

Another recusal refusal – but this time the Court of Appeal steps in

by Paul M | Aug 3, 2020 | Analysis, Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

In the second such case in a month, a judge has refused to recuse herself at the request of a litigant, but on this occasion the Court of Appeal has reversed that decision and ordered that she step down from the case and let another judge take over.  In the...
Recusal refusal: judge declines to step down in response to litigant’s suspicions of apparent bias

Recusal refusal: judge declines to step down in response to litigant’s suspicions of apparent bias

by Paul M | Jul 17, 2020 | Cases, Comment, Explanation

In an earlier post we described how a judge refused to allow a McKenzie Friend to speak in court on behalf of a litigant in person. In a further judgment in the same case, Ameyaw v McGoldrick [2020] EWHC 1787 (QB), Mrs Justice Steyn refused the litigant’s application...
Right of audience denied: McKenzie Friend not allowed to speak for litigant who was ‘well able to speak on her own behalf’

Right of audience denied: McKenzie Friend not allowed to speak for litigant who was ‘well able to speak on her own behalf’

by Paul M | Jul 5, 2020 | Cases, Comment, Explanation

The recent case of Ameyaw v McGoldrick [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) offers a cautionary tale about McKenzie Friends and what they can and can’t do for you in court. In this case the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, refused to allow the MF to make oral submissions on behalf of...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Julie Doughty on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers
  • Simon on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers
  • Julie Doughty on Sending a mother to prison for contempt of court
  • Celia Kitzinger on Sending a mother to prison for contempt of court
  • Julie Doughty on ‘Parental alienation experts’

Search for something in particular

More search options

September 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« Aug    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 Article 10 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid COVID-19 CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments judiciary legal aid legalbloggingpilot misconduct open justice parental alienation privacy injunctions psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok