Weekly Notes: legal news from ICLR, 20 January 2025

Our first roundup of the Hilary Term includes open justice, courts, inquiries, and a new boss. Plus recent case law and commentary.

13 min readJan 21, 2025

Recent legal news

Open justice

“Importantly, in the common law tradition the judge’s identity must be known; those who exercise the judicial power of the state should not do so in secret.”

So declared Lord Burnett of Maldon, speaking as the Lord Chief Justice at the Commonwealth Judges and Magistrates Conference 2023 in Cardiff, under the title Open Justice Today. Now the question of judicial anonymity is the subject of an important case which was heard in the Court of Appeal last week.

The court (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, King and Warby LJJ) was hearing an appeal by two freelance journalists, Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, as well as several media organisations against an order made by Williams J in Tickle v Surrey County Council [2024] EWHC 3330 (Fam), when releasing other information to the press about historic family court proceedings involving Sara Sharif, that the names of the judges involved should not be published. Those proceedings had concluded with the order that Sara should live with the father and stepmother who last month were convicted of the 10-year-old’s brutal murder in August 2023.

The appeal was live blogged by members of the Transparency Project on BlueSky, and widely reported by the publishers involved in the case: see Transparency Project, Sharif judges anonymity: the appeal coverage. Judgment was reserved.

Reporting pilot

Wider transparency in the family courts has been promised by the national roll-out of the Reporting Pilot, following its success over the last two years. According to the announcement on the Judiciary website, from 27 January 2025, any journalists and legal bloggers attending the Family Court will be able to report on what they see and hear there, if a transparency order is granted. There will be a presumption that a transparency order, protecting the anonymity of the children and family, will be granted, unless there is a legitimate reason not to. The new policy will come into force under stepped arrangements, starting with public law cases, then private law cases, and finally cases before magistrates.

Key objectives

The judicial Transparency and Open Justice Board, set up last year by the Lady Chief Justice to look at improving access to justice information across the board, has proposed, among other ideas in a Key Objectives paper released last month, that judicial review proceedings in the High Court (claims against public bodies about flawed decision-making) could be live-streamed, as most hearings in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division and some in the Criminal Division, currently are.

Another important proposal by the Board is the extension of automatic audio recording to lower courts, such as magistrates’ courts and tribunals, to enable transcripts to be made of hearings and decisions, in the same way as in the higher courts of record. There have been lots of complaints about the inability of litigants and observers to obtain a transcript of proceedings in those courts, especially employment tribunals; and even when transcripts are available, the cost is often prohibitive.

As with many of the issues around making justice clearer and providing more access to case information, any judicial support for the Board’s proposals (not something to be taken for granted, as we have found already in the family courts) would need to be matched by support and resources from the MOJ and HMCTS, which at a time of renewed austerity, seems more challenging.

Transparency and Open Justice Board: Key Objectives paper and Key Objectives engagement: Explanatory note

Law Gazette: Open Justice board asks justice secretary for judicial reviews to be livestreamed

Joshua Rozenberg, A Lawyer Writes: JR on TV? and Open Justice

Tik-Tokker told off

One lawyer, known as the TikTok defence lawyer, took transparency a little too far, according to a report in Roll On Friday, and filmed himself in “the big chair” while the lay magistrates were out, in breach of the statutory prohibition against photography in court. Mohammed Zeb, 48, a criminal defence specialist with a considerable social media presence was reprimanded by regulators for filming himself sitting on the judge’s bench for a TikTok video. While the magistrates were out of the courtroom at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court last August, Zeb “nipped round to sit in the big chair” and pretended to hear a case. Then he “uploaded the parody to social media as part of a compilation of court-set clips, but at least one viewer took issue with the solicitor’s jape and reported him to the SRA”, according to ROF. The story also appeared in The Times: TikTok defence lawyer in hot water after filming himself in judge’s chair.

Given the extent to which court proceedings are now filmed and broadcast, it is probably high time to review the somewhat old fashioned prohibition against photography (or indeed the making of any graven image) in court, which dates back to section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. The section is subject to a number of express exceptions, enabling live streaming, video links etc; and there is a widespread belief that there is an implied exception for when the court is not engaged in active proceedings, eg for a valedictory speech, or when the judge expressly gives permission for photographs to be taken.

Courts

Not all litigants are happy with the service received. Complaints about courts have, apparently, ‘rocketed’ according to the Law Gazette. A written parliamentary answer showed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service was ‘on course to receive a record number of complaints in 2024, with 32,212 received by the end of November. The previous record was set in 2023 when 32,745 complaints were made.’ The article goes on to say ‘complaint figures have increased every year in the past decade’ but it rather looks as though the 2024 figure is lower by several hundred than the 2023 figure, so maybe it will not break any records. Even so, it is disappointing.

The UK Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which are not run by HMCTS) have launched a new case management portal and websites. The newly designed portal and websites, which went live in December, were created with a core focus, they say, namely to deliver a ‘world class service which puts users at their heart’. Users can file documents digitally and track the progress of their cases in real time at at their own convenience. The new websites also offer better access (and accessibility) to information for the public and school groups planning a visit or making inquiries.

Litigation

Commercial court claims are falling. Litigation Futures reported research by Solomonic, described as a litigation intelligence company, revealing that the number of new claims issued in the Commercial Court in 2024 fell to the lowest figure since 2014, when 776 new claims were issued. Last year the figure was only 470, which represented a 37% reduction on the number for the previous year.

According to analysis by the media law blog Inforrm, the number of new claims in the Media and Communications List also fell, by 18%, from 213 claims in 2023 to 174 issued in 2024. See Inforrm’s Blog, Media and Communications List: Analysis of Claims Issued in 2024.

One of the biggest claims due to be heard this year is that by the Duke of Sussex, aka the Harry formerly known as Prince, who is suing News Group Newspapers for misuse of private information obtained by a variety of ‘dark arts’ and dodgy methods (though not, in this case, phone hacking), over a period of many years. Lord Watson is also claiming, but numerous other claimants have already settled similar claims against NGN, often for substantial sums. Harry seems less fearful than most of the possible costs consequences of loss, and seems keen to pursue the matter in the public interest. He may pay, or win, a princely sum for doing so.

See BBC, Prince Harry versus newspapers: This is the one that matters

Guardian, Prince Harry gets his day in court against Murdoch’s newspapers

Inquiries

Child sexual abuse and grooming gangs

There have been calls for a new national inquiry into the response or lack of it into allegations about so-called ‘grooming gangs’, ie the organised sexual abuse of minors, prompted in part by political agitation on social media from people who are not necessarily well informed or acting disinterestedly in pursuing the agenda. There has been a national inquiry — the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), a seven-year inquiry chaired by Professor Alexis Jay into a wide range of child abuse, from rape gangs to grooming by foster parents, church leaders and care home staff — and several local ones, including review of on-street grooming in Rotherham, also conducted by Jay. But only one of the 20 recommendations made by Jay in the report of the IICSA in 2022 has come close to being implemented by the government, namely the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, on pain of prosecution. This was the subject of a consultation in 2023 and there is now a private member’s bill in the House of Lords: Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill

The Times: The sex abuse inquiry proposals in full — and progress so far

Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, recently announced that anyone working with children who fails to report child sexual abuse will face professional and criminal sanctions under a change in the law. The changes will be made through the government’s Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be introduced to parliament within the next few weeks. Those failing to report abuse could be sacked and barred from working with children, while those found to have actively prevented others from reporting such crimes could face several years in jail.

The Times: Failure to report child sex abuse to be made a crime

Professor Jay has said it would be wrong to launch a new inquiry as this would “certainly cause delays” in implementing the reforms she called for in her final 2022 report. But the investigative journalist Andrew Norfolk, who first revealed the grooming gang scandal in 2011, which in turn prompted a CPS review of prosecution priorities and thresholds under the leadership of Keir Starmer as Director of Public Prosecutions, says Jay’s national inquiry failed to get to grips with the root causes of grooming gangs which have still not been properly examined.

The Times: We still don’t know cause of grooming gangs, says scandal reporter

The Home Secretary appears to be trying to please both camps, having now announced plans for a nationwide review of grooming gang evidence and five government-backed local inquiries. She stopped short of launching a statutory national inquiry, as called for by the Conservatives and some Labour MPs, but this marks a clear shift in the government’s position.

BBC: Cooper announces inquiries into grooming gangs

ICLR news

This month we are pleased to welcome Andy Redman as our new CEO, taking over from Kevin Laws, who continues as CFO. Redman has previously worked at Sweet & Maxwell and Oxford University Press (OUP), and most recently as Head of Books at the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). He brings a wealth of experience in legal and academic publishing and a breadth of vision to help lead us through the opportunities and challenges facing ICLR at a time of rapid change in legal practice and research.

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

BANKRUPTCY — Property passing to trustee — Award for unpaid holiday pay: Main v SpaDental Ltd, 23 Dec 2024 [2024] EAT 200; [2025] WLR(D) 4, EAT

COMPANY — Register — Restoration to register: In re Prudencia LLP (A v Registrar of Companies), 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWHC 3255 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 22, Ch D

COMPETITION — Collective proceedings — Certification: Christine Riefa Class Representative Ltd v Apple Inc, 14 Jan 2025 [2025] CAT 5; [2025] WLR(D) 23, Ch D

COMPETITION — Collective proceedings — Collective settlement: Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd v MOL (Europe) Africa Ltd, 15 Jan 2025 [2025] CAT 4; [2025] WLR(D) 26, CAT

CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment: Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo, 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1602; [2024] WLR(D) 21, CA

CRIME — Communications offences — Time limit on prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions v Jinks, 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWHC 3341 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 2, DC

CRIME — Terrorism — Expressing support for proscribed organisation: R v ABJ (R v BDN), 24 Dec 2024 [2024] EWCA Crim 1597; [2025] WLR(D) 14; Press summary, CA

DEBT — Enforcement — Moratorium: Seculink Ltd v Forbes, 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWHC 3339 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 19, Ch D

EXTRADITION — Arrest warrant — Proportionality: Prawdzik v Regional Court of Bialystok, Poland, 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWHC 3324 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 16, KBD

NATIONALITY — British citizenship — Deprivation of citizenship: Chaudhry v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 17 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 16; [2025] WLR(D) 27, CA

PLANNING — Development plan — Interpretation: Save our Southbank v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 20 Dec 2024 [2024] EWHC 3326 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 12, KBD

STATUTE — Construction — Service of documents by post: Khan v D’Aubigny, 17 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 11; [2025] WLR(D) 28, CA

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Local Government Lawyer: Judges reject appeal by council in dispute over entitlement to right to buy: London Borough of Hackney v Weintraub [2024] EWCA Civ 1561, CA

Henderson chambers: High Court refuses to strike out $2.625m debt claim: Alphier Capital LLP v Blyvoor Gold Capital (Pty) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2649 (Ch), Ch D

Hailsham chambers: Contribution Claims and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010: Riedweg v HCC International Insurance Plc [2024] EWHC 2805 (Ch), Ch D

A Lawyer Writes: Hamas appeals dismissed: R v ABJ; R v BDN [2024] EWCA Crim 1597; Press summary, CA

4 New Square chambers: The Grip of the Peril: Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, CA

2 Hare Court chambers: PSA v GDC and Danial [2024] EWHC 2610 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 441, KBD

St Ives chambers: With great power…In re K [2024] EWCA Civ 2; [2024] 4 WLR 9; [2024] 3 All ER 1079; [2024] 1 FLR 1261; [2024] WLR(D) 26, CA

Financial Remedies Journal: Child Maintenance and Mortgage Payments — New Guidance: LM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 259 (AAC); [2024] WLR(D) 460, UT

UK Human Rights Blog: Young persons’ consent for cross-sex hormone treatment: O v P [2024] EWCA Civ 1577; [2024] WLR(D) 568, CA

Hailsham Chambers: Scope of duty, “moral turpitude” and adverse inferences: Melia v Tamlyn & Son Ltd [2024] EWHC 3002 (Ch)[2024] EWHC 3002 (Ch), Ch D

A Lawyer Writes: Misleading Cases: The Lord Chancellor v 79 Divorced Couples [2024] EWHC 3211 (Fam), Fam D

Law & Religion UK: Balancing faith, family, and medical ethics: Fatima’s case: Birmingham Women’s and Children’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB [2024] EWHC 3292 (Fam), Fam D

Pensions Barrister: Police Pension Scheme: Court holds multiple referrals for ill-health early retirement possible: Major v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2024] EWHC 3290 (Admin), KBD

Free Movement: Court of Appeal says that application made to EU Settlement Scheme was correctly rejected: Emambux v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1459, CA

12 KBW: Anonymity orders: the view from the coalface following PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB), KBD

Free Movement: Home Office wins appeal against interim admission of parents of separated children: EK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1601, CA

Local Government Lawyer: Bid by father to revoke placement orders after 11-month period of alcohol abstinence fails: AB v Durham County Council (Revocation of Placement Orders) [2024] EWFC 370, Fam Ct

3PB: Taxation of financial loss from discrimination: L v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2024] UKFTT 1044 (TC), FTT

Local Government Lawyer: Wrexham councillor wins appeal over High Court ruling which led to warnings it would be contempt if members of local authority did not adopt local plan: Jones v Wrexham County Borough Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1603, CA

Gatehouse chambers: Switaj v McClenaghan [2024] EWCA Civ 1457; [2024] WLR(D) 522, CA

Tanfield chambers: No Ifs, No Butts: Evaluating evidence for unconditional loans versus investments: Butt v Butt [2024] EWHC 3222 (Ch), Ch D

St John’s chambers: Supreme Court case update: the Vendor-Purchaser Constructive Trust and Frenkel v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd [2024] UKSC 42; [2025] 2 WLR 1; [2024] WLR(D) 556, SC(E)

Wilderforce chambers: Marcus v Marcus: can a non-biological child be ‘a child of the settlor’? Marcus v Marcus [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch), Ch D

Law & Religion UK: Unfair dismissal and clerical employment: Rev S Bozos v Greek Orthodox Community of Leeds [2024] UKET 1805572/2022 , ET

Law & Religion UK: Consistory court addresses tort of nuisance: Re St. Paul North Shore Blackpool [2024] ECC Bla 6, Const Ct

Henderson chambers: Regulators must regulate lawfully: The availability of private law claims and remedies does not oust judicial review: In re McAleenon [2024] EWCA Civ 1561, CA

And finally…

Lettuce before action

The former Prime Minister (and Lord Chancellor) Liz Truss instructed solicitors to write a “cease and desist” letter to the current Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, complaining that his repeated statements to the effect that she had, when Prime Minister, “trashed the economy”, were libellous. However, the letter failed to threaten any legal action or other consequences, should he not comply. It was therefore quite ineffective as a “cease and desist” letter, let alone a Slapp in the face for her successor. David Allen Green, himself a media lawyer, has now written three posts on the subject, explaining and questioning the motives behind the sending and leaking of the letter to the press. He also kindly adopted my observation (on BlueSky) that it was “like sending lettuce before action”. Here are the three posts on his Law and Policy Blog (which I hardly need add should be required reading for anyone interested in current legal and constitutional developments):

Time for Truss to turn over a new leaf, perhaps.

That’s it for now! Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts.

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.