We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
It was announced on 8 October 2019 that the Government has
appointed seven new judges to the Court of Appeal. These
appointments follow the enactment over the summer of the Courts Act
2019 which provides for an increase in the number of ordinary
judges sitting on the Court of Appeal to 15 (previously 9).
The seven new judges are existing High Court judges Mr Justice
Seamus Noonan, Mr Justice Robert Haughton, Ms Justice Úna
Ní Raifeartaigh and Ms Justice Mary Faherty. Senior counsel
Ann Power SC (a former judge of the European Court of Human
Rights), Maurice Collins SC and Brian Murray SC complete the
appointments.
Six of the new judges will take up their appointment immediately
while the seventh, Maurice Collins SC, will begin following the
retirement of Mr Justice Michael Peart at the end of this
month.
This announcement follows comments made by the Chief Justice in
a statement for the start of the new legal year that delays with
making these appointments would result in some hearings having to
be postponed. It is hoped that these new appointments will assist
in reducing the backlog of appeal currently awaiting hearing before
the Court of Appeal. The average waiting time for a hearing in the
Court of Appeal is currently between 18 months and 2 years.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As the Judge himself noted, the owner's procedural manoeuvre – designed to evade the jurisdiction clause – may well be of a type that had not previously triggered an English anti-suit injunction.
The English High Court in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Exotix Partners LLP [2019] EWHC 2380 (Ch) found it necessary to imply a term to a debt security trade agreement
The most notable of these decisions, however, was that the discretion in respect of the proceedings against the (non-EU) Lugano-domiciled (Swiss) Defendants existed at all.
Following the Supreme Court hearing in the Halliburton v Chubb case, Craig Tevendale of Herbert Smith Freehills in London considers the significance...
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.