Due to upcoming reforms, Family lawyers are concerned that couples may be unable to divorce due to the closure of the digital portal used for applications. Practitioners logging on to the MyHMCTS online service this week were stunned to discover a message stating that the divorce service will close soon due to alterations in divorce legislation. A new system will be actioned on 6 April, implementing the provisions of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act, which will assist in a new age of no-fault divorce. Headlined ‘Divorce Service’, the notice supposedly states: ‘This service will close soon due to changes in divorce legislation. Submit your saved application as soon as possible so they do not get returned. For new applications, consider waiting until the replacement service is launched – otherwise you may have to submit them again.’ Solicitor and family law arbitrator at Dexter Montague Tony Roe, described the situation as ‘shambolic’ and ‘wholly unsatisfactory’. He reported to the press that it was uncertain as to whether HMCTS would accept paper applications during the time that the digital service is closed, and whether practitioners will be able to obtain consent orders. A partner at Burgess Mee Family Law, Peter Burgess, commented: ‘It is obviously very worrying and not at all helpful if there is a “gap” between the two services, into which clients who require an urgent turnaround may fall. It is also not clear if paper petitions can still be submitted in urgent cases if there is a gap. Use of the portal was mandated from last year, but the relevant practice direction does provide for that rule to be suspended if there is an outage.’ Last year ministers broadcast that they had to put back their first deadline for applying for the new provisions, stating that the Ministry of Justice was ‘committed to ensuring that the amended digital service allows for a smooth transition from the existing service which has reformed the way divorce is administered in the courts and improved the service received by divorcing couples at a traumatic point in their lives’.

As tensions rise on the Russian border this week, law firms with offices in Ukraine were on elevated alert. It has been reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin had commanded troops into two rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine after identifying them as independent states.The UK Foreign Office has advised that British nationals currently in Ukraine should exit whilst commercial options are still in place. Following the growing tensions, Air France has become the latest airline to withdraw Ukraine flights as a precautionary measure.Few UK lawyers or firms are believed to be based in the affected regions, but there are a number of firms who have offices in the capital Kyiv. CMS Cameron McKenna has 40 domestic and internationally qualified lawyers in its Kyiv office, while Baker McKenzie and Dentons also operate from the country.A spokesperson for Dentons stated this week: ‘We hope for a peaceful resolution to the present crisis situation involving Russia and Ukraine, and our immediate concern is to support our people in this difficult time.‘Dentons has contingency plans in place to stay in contact with our people and ensure business continuity in case of escalation. At this point, our Kyiv office remains open and fully operational. We are monitoring the situation carefully and have measures in place to ensure we can provide our colleagues in Kiev with any assistance they need.’The firm also noted: ‘In light of the ongoing situation between Ukraine and Russia, we are closely monitoring developments at all times and are doing everything possible to support our people during these challenging and uncertain circumstances. Their safety and wellbeing is our number one priority and this principle guides everything that we are doing.’Last week, the Ukrainian Bar Association said that the disputed territories were ‘integral parts’ of Ukraine and all other definitions would be disapproved by the professional legal community.The statement further detailed: ‘We believe it is necessary to strengthen the sanctions package against Russia and to review the possibility of imposing personal sanctions in the event of recognition by the President of the RF of the occupied territories.‘The UBA also supports the initiative of the parliament of Ukraine to raise the question of Russia being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.‘UBA stands ready to provide legal assistance and legal advice in the context of relevant proceedings in international courts.’

Reshaping human rights legislation in order to give prime consideration to domestic law may generate doubt, a former Supreme Court justice has informed.It was recommended by an independent review into the Human Rights Act that section 2 of the 1998 legislation should be amended, making UK statute and case law the first concern to address when executing a convention right, prior to Strasbourg case law being considered. ‘By giving prior consideration to national law but continuing to take proper account of ECtHR [European Court of Human Rights] case law, it is designed to promote greater consistency in the application of section 2 by UK Courts and greater domestic political and public ownership of human rights, while giving full effect to the principle of subsidiarity and maintaining the beneficial equilibrium reached between UK Courts and the ECtHR,’ the Gross review reports.However, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill, who resided on the Supreme Court bench for eight years, notified the House of Commons justice select committee this week that he opposed the proposal. ‘They seem to be saying it would improve our feeling that the thing belongs to us if there was some sort of provision that says “Start off by looking at British law/common law, and then only if that’s not adequate go on to the convention”’, he stated.‘If the convention is going to give you rights, and you bring yourself within those rights, you should be able to rely on them. I don’t see why you should be looking around for some other common law equivalent.’When questioned how the government’s proposals on section 2 could alter the UK courts’ approach to Strasbourg case law, Lord Carnwath commented: ‘I can’t predict, I’m afraid. Happily, I’m no longer there. If I was there, I would be very confused. We would go through a period where we would have hopeful advocates appearing in front of us, citing cases from all over the place. My own feeling is, one would eventually settle down and say, as these cases may go to Strasbourg, we’ve obviously got to keep in mind what they’re saying. I find it difficult to see how it’s meant to operate. I certainly think it’s not going to increase certainty, which is what the government seems to be saying.’Lord Carnwath also informed the committee that he found plans to minimise foreign national offenders’ right to appeal deportation orders on human rights grounds ‘somewhat confusing’, indicating that stringent limitations on the courts’ powers were initiated in 2014.

More than two years after it was initially announced, the anticipated royal commission on the criminal justice system still has no set start date.Lord Wolfson, the Justice minister, notified the House of Lords that the government still plans to host a commission, which was made public in the Queen’s speech in December 2019, but mentioned that due to coronavirus, it has been delayed.‘Due to the pandemic, we slowed work to establish the royal commission,’ he noted. ‘Significant new programmes of work were established to support recovery and build back a better system. In the last six months, we have undertaken several new programmes. All our focus is on delivering these priorities over the coming months.’Lord Ramsbotham, Crossbench peer a former chief inspector of prisons, who initially questioned timings in July 2020, stated: ‘I regard it as extremely discourteous of the government to ask Her Majesty the Queen to make an announcement which they had no intention of implementing.’In response, Wolfson said: ‘Since the Queen’s speech in 2019, there has been a small matter of a global pandemic, which has affected the criminal justice system very substantially.’ ‘It is a little unfair to say and, in fact, inaccurate to say that we had no intention of implementing that,’ he further noted.The former president of the family division, Baroness Butler-Sloss, simply asked: ‘When is it intended to start the royal commission?’Wolfson replied: ‘I’m afraid I can’t go any further than [what] I have already said. We are looking at it. What we want to do is make sure that we actually maintain our current programmes.’A former MP Conservative peer, Lord Forsyth, questioned how the pandemic or other work within the Ministry of Justice would have interrupted the establishment of the royal commission or its running.Wolfson commented: ‘As I understand it, the royal commission would need significant resource from the department and, indeed, the people who are working on the royal commission were deployed to other work during the pandemic and that is what they are still doing.’He additionally said: ‘We are still focused, in due course, [on] having a royal commission on criminal justice.’

Land Registry has revealed that in excess of 3,500 applications per day include missing, unfinished or incorrectly drawn information. A caseworker evaluates the matter and a request for information, known as a ‘requisition’, is often sent out. A requisition can hinder the completion of a straightforward case as applications can take up to two weeks to update.In a blog, customer policy executive Darren Standring stated that feedback showed customers ‘like a quick phone call’ how to fix a simple application issue. ‘We don’t currently have comprehensive information on how often they were used and how much time they saved for customers and for our caseworkers. The aim of the trial is to help us make evidence-driven decisions about the future of telephone requisitions,’ he noted.At present, older cases are being trialled in which a caseworker will call a conveyancer. If however the issue cannot be resolved over the phone, a requisition will be made in writing as before. Most requisitions are emailed to conveyancers.Telephone requisitions will be tested for no less than a month. ‘We will then take stock of what the trial has told us and make a decision on how to proceed. At this stage we are not necessarily committing to the reintroduction of telephone requisitions as we want to be sure that any long-term solution provides real support for our customers as well as bringing greater efficiency – and therefore speed – to our services,’ Standring noted.

The government has revealed in its ‘Levelling Up’ white paper that legislation will be set in motion if necessary to make sure more upfront information is available to prospective home buyers.Published late this week, the 332-page document states that approximately a third of all housing transactions fall through, resulting in people having to pay hundreds of millions of pounds, and pledges to improve the ‘expensive, time-consuming and stressful’ process of selling and buying a home.It notes: ‘The UK government and the industry will work together to ensure the critical material information buyers need to know – like tenure type, lease length and any service charges – are available digitally wherever possible from trusted and authenticated sources, and provided only once. If necessary, the UK government will legislate.’Practitioner groups and representative bodies have been looking at ways to offer more upfront information. Last year the Law Society started trialling a new transaction form, TA6 Part 1, to make additional information during listing. The Home Buying and Selling Group published a Buying and Selling Property Information (BASPI) dataset, which included details from the Law Society’s current TA6 form, property information questionnaire and valuation summary.The government also intends to see take-up of more commonhold flats to ‘level up’ the country by supporting more people onto the housing ladder, and also plans to bring forward commonhold legislation as part of a wider policy.The government has been eager to encourage commonhold as an appealing alternative form of property ownership and revealed a Commonhold Council last year to ready the market.Image from https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-conservative-party-conference-when-boris-johnson-speech-time-live-updates-b959019.html

The defence body, NHS Resolution, has named the 11 firms which will be on its legal panel in order to manage cases over the next three years.The annual expenditure, minus of VAT, during this period could be approximately £193m, however NHSR emphasises that there is no guarantee of work or its value. The new contracts commence on 1 March.Support will be provided by the first panel to the organisation to handle claims under clinical and non-clinical indemnity schemes for NHS trusts, GP practices and independent sector providers. The firms included in this category are: Bevan Brittan, Browne Jacobson, Capsticks, Clyde & Co, DAC Beachcroft, DWF Law, Hempsons, Hill Dickinson, Kennedys and Weightmans.A second panel supplying expert advice on regulatory, health and employment law include: Bevan Brittan, Blake Morgan, Browne Jacobson, Capsticks, DAC Beachcroft, Hempsons, Hill Dickinson and Weightmans.NHS Resolution noted in a statement that: ‘Contracts were awarded following a rigorous, competitive procurement process to ensure firms are appointed that can provide a high quality service at a competitive price, ensuring maximum value for money.’The panel is made up of an extension of the firms selected in 2019, the final time the process ran. On that particular event, seven firms were allotted to facilitate with all seven employed in the new group.

Candidates logging into their SQE accounts to view their results were able to view other candidate’s data – however, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s exam provider confirmed that no breach occurred.Under the new route to qualifying as a solicitor, nearly all of the 1,090 candidates who took the exam were given access to their results last Thursday. Kaplan, the exam provider, confirmed that the issues for eight candidates were settled last Friday.Following this, the Solicitors Regulation Authority announced that 53% of candidates passed SQE1, the first of the two sets of assessments under the new qualification route.Kaplan reported that candidates who took the exam are sent an email notifying them that their results are accessible in their account. A breakdown of their results are found on the results page, including their quintile position in connection to others in the exam.Asked if results were visible among candidates, Kaplan said: ‘We were made aware by a small number of candidates of inconsistencies in non-exam information displayed on the website, specifically relating to name and candidate ID number. We have investigated and do not believe candidates saw other candidates’ results.’Pressurised further on the matter, Kaplan noted: ‘Yes, several candidates saw a name and exam ID number of another candidate, but this was on pages outside of the secure log-in part of the platform, and therefore no other information was seen.’When questioned if any of the issues had been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Kaplan responded: ‘We were made aware by a small number of candidates of inconsistencies in non-exam information displayed on the website. We have investigated to ensure that no sensitive information was released in error. We have determined there was no reportable data breach but the SRA has notified their relationship manager at the ICO as part of their standard process.’

The billions recovered by law enforcement through fines and confiscations should be utilised by the UK to create a ‘central economic crime fighting fund’ to support agencies which are ‘under- resourced, over-stretched, and out-gunned’, a recent report details.The National Crime Agency (NCA) has suggested that the UK loses approximately £290bn each year to fraud and money laundering, which when combined equals to almost 15% of the UK’s GDP.Nonetheless, anti-corruption charity Spotlight on Corruption has estimated that the average sum spent per year on law enforcement agencies was £852m, equivalent to just 0.09% of entire government spending or 0.042% of GDP.In a report published this week, Spotlight on Corruption stated that The Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue and Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service and the NCA ,proposed around £3.9bn through fines, confiscation, forfeiture and civil recovery orders, between 2016 and 2021.For example, assets worth £568m were recovered by the CPS through its proceeds of crime unit over the past five years, which is ‘eleven times more than its £51.7m budget for the same period’.It is estimated by Spotlight of Corruption that if that £3.9bn total was reinvested back into the agencies, ‘overall enforcement spending could have been provisionally increased by an additional £748m per year – an approximate increase of 93% on current funding levels’.However, despite making a significant revenue, ‘law enforcement budgets at core agencies tasked with fighting economic crime continue to suffer from real-term cuts and short-term budget allocations rather than sustained investment’, it further added.The report detailed: ‘Existing government proposals for funding law enforcement are not sufficient to drive the transformational change needed to keep pace with what the government recognises as a severe and growing threat. If the UK is to tackle economic crime effectively, far greater ambition about the scale of public investment needed is required.’Spotlight on Corruption also requested ‘a coherent strategy for protecting the public purse in economic crime law enforcement actions’, which would include the progression of ‘an enforceable model litigant code for lawyers to prevent the use of stalling and spurious tactics that waste court time and drain public resources’, and collaborating with judges ‘to ensure better judicial management of cases to strike out abusive litigation tactics’.