Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Some great current judges

We have a few really first rate judges sitting today: who think carefully, have reliably good judgment, and who write clearly. I'd mark out Foxton and Marcus Smith JJ, and Lord Leggatt. Perhaps Henshaw J and maybe Males LJ.

Any others?

Marcus Smith and legatt agreed.

I’d expect Arnold LJ and Birss LJ to come into their own soon.  Birss is new to CoA but I suspect he will be elevated before Arnold, who is the greater intellect.

Marcus Smith has surprised me with some of his judgments (quality in areas of law I didn’t even know he covered).

Talk of High Court judiciary reminds me of Muttley's wonderful vignette of appearing in the well of the Court and looking up at the terrifying dizzying heights of the three judges and thinking fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccckkkk.  That is still the feeling i get in front of the Court of Appeal.

Andrew Baker J certainly whapped his judicial member out onto the table recently for the "ETERNAL BLISS" with some punchy comments aimed at other judgments and various textbooks.

Undoubtedly a brain, but not sure he quite achieved the requisite crispness.

What is wrong with Brownlie, Heff? Isn't Sumption absolutely right that eg it's a nonsense to suggest tortious damage is suffered in England because you have to pay medical bills in England having been in a car crash in Egypt?

That makes a mockery of the rule, as simply residing somewhere would confer jurisdiction.

Agree re Rock Advertising though. Odd decision.

I don't disagree with decision, but he's managed to make the threshold test for jurisdiction unbelievably complicated - even the Court of Appeal couldn't really understand - see Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA De CV & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 10

Personally I think there are some odd, slapdash decisions coming out of the SC / JCPC at the moment. Webb v Webb is particularly unimpressive - just doesn't sit with previous jurisprudence and causes a number of serious problems the court didnt bother to think about. There is a very odd paragraph in Ciban v Citco too.

I like Lord Hodge, what do people think of him?

Worth saying again: what the fook is this thread?

@Murphus - Why you not a fan of Coulsdon? It's got an Aldi and a Waitrose, and you are always guaranteed a warm welcome at Frames Sports Bar.

Truly something for everyone.

This thread is weird.  ‘Bovine J anyone!?   Yes, Bovine is most solidly satisfactory. And to that I add Mrs Justice Clitz and Euphoria LJ. But her dissenting judgment in Severed Head was lacking consistency. Brian Blessed for the win. he’s a fine judge... yes a fine judge. And I bought a harpsichord from him at reasonable rates. ‘

all reminds me of Peter Cook ‘ I never had the Latin for the judgin’ 

*transactional lawyer wanders onto thread*

 

Er, Diplock? I had a goldfish named after him.  And another one called Lord Keith (of Kinkell).  Is Denning still knocking about?

Er, Diplock? I had a goldfish named after him.  And another one called Lord Keith (of Kinkell).  Is Denning still knocking about?

 

 

--- transactional lawyer showing hitherto unknown levels of awareness of contentious practice and, by all usual standards, well ahead of his transactional colleagues on knowledge of latest judicial appointments.

Pretty outrageous defamation, Spurious.  

putting me in an and with Buzz...Jesus...

...summary judgment territory, that...

assuming a decent judge.

anyone know any good ones? 

Hmm. Quite a strong appeal against Marcus Smith J here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/145.html

 

  1. This is an appeal, brought by leave granted by Floyd LJ, against an Order of Marcus Smith J made on 11 June 2020 whereby he refused permission to the appellant claimants (collectively, "Ocado") to apply to commit the respondent defendant ("Mr McKeeve") for contempt of court. The committal application, made pursuant to CPR Pt 81.14, was made against a background of underlying proceedings commenced against various parties by Ocado in the High Court. Those proceedings have all the hallmarks of tooth and claw litigation.
  2. The context of the contempt application is, on any view, remarkable. It is admitted that within minutes of being notified of the fact that an Order for Search of Premises and Preservation of Evidence had been made in the High Court against clients of his, Mr McKeeve, a solicitor, gave instructions to his clients' Information Technology manager to "Burn it" (or "Burn all"). In consequence, that manager then deleted or disabled various IT accounts. One of these was an account, previously operated on a covert basis, known as the 3CX account. Its deletion has meant that any messages sent via that account are wholly irretrievable. Ocado has alleged that Mr McKeeve's conduct was intended to interfere with the due administration of justice.
  3. The judge, after considering the particulars of contempt alleged and after reviewing the evidence, concluded that no sufficient prima facie case of contempt of court had been made out. He accordingly refused permission and dismissed the committal application. The question for this court is whether he was wrong to have done so.

Spoiler alert: he was wrong to have done so. 

Mutters, you do realise that when you write "bought a harpsicord from him" you are on of the very few roffers from whom that is insufficiently outlandish to be detectable as satire...

 

Anyway, +1 for Coulson, and 1 for Justice Jackson, if only for giving rise to the Jackson 5 Jokes

I had a case in front of Lord Sales when he was in Chancery and he got his Judgment so wrong the opposition had to point out he'd found for them on a claim they hadn't made, and he then reverse-ferreted by coming to the same conclusion but in a sustainable way.  Nearly fell off my chair when he replaced Sumption.  Suppose everyone can have an off day, good job I'm perfect etc...

The ultimate Lazarus thread.

 

Anyway, since you're about, have you now read Euphoria J's judgment in Severed Head? How can we reconcile that dicta with Sir David Venereal-Bush's views on causation set out in Spong v Spong ("The Clusterfook") [2021] AC 245?

 transactional lawyer showing hitherto unknown levels of awareness of contentious practice

At my last law firm I got to watch securitisation partners try and do litigation.  That was hilarious / scary depending on your perspective.

Gummidge J delivered a sound decision on interest in Re. British Spaz Plc. But it went pear-shaped at the CofA when Sir Anthony Rammer QC, representing the Respondent, persuaded Jaws LJ to reopen the issue of Semper Masturbatur which had to be corrected by the SC despite the best efforts of Lord Clown.  Lords Smith, Smyth and Smythe were resolute and, in my view correct, but Love-Truncheon was on a frolic of his own political bent. Dames Vera Lush and Charmian Badhabit let themselves down.  Derek Wenis should not have been appointed.

The decision of Smith was astonishing. He basically rolled over, let his tummy be tickled, and allowed the ‘dog ate my homework’ argument from the wretched Solicitor.

Pathetic quality of jurisprudence from the High Court bench. Should be sacked.

This case is clearly the sort that the SRA should be getting their claws into rather than the consensual hanky-panky stuff they are currently obsessed with.

I thought Marcus Smith quite good.  He certainly is in stuff I have seen him in.  

 

I speedread but it seems like he suggested that the application failed due to the way it was drafted.  Doesnt seem that curious and surprising to me.

yes, Marcus Smith is a proper legal intellectual and he writes very well

but this appeal is a very strong one...

Matthew Nicklin seems to be doing very well in the media list - very diligent and sensible

By contrast David Carmine is clearly overpromoted. An utter lightweight. Takes an age to produce a judgment that cannot grapple with fact or follow legal principles to their natural conclusions. Should be carried to the fields and left to have his tongue and eyes pecked out by crows.   His decision in Davies v Natural Foods was a travesty.

I used to really rate Warby J. He seems to really understand data protection law and attempt to balance the competing interests if being a bit too on the side of data controllers. However, his treatment of the Daily Mail is a disgrace and he is clearly toadying up to the Royals. sad. 

Still this thread rambles on with posts that seem to damn with faint praise...but hang on, what's this? Crypto puts the boot in...

Throatwobbler J was harmless, reasonably capable of understanding facts and had a reasonable grasp of law. BUT HIS DECISION IN BRITISH SPAZ V DILDO WAS AN OUTRAGE

 

btw, Heff, I get regular marketing emails from a well known firm and the email is from a very capitalized and aggressive ANDREW SMITH and I keep thinking its Andrew Smith J  coming at me from Fountain Court to bring up something from a decade back. .

 

 

I remember my first day as a trainee when one of the partners at the firm got the hump because my intake couldn’t name the AG, the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls. I still can’t, let alone any other judge.

This may seem quite improbable, but until just now, after 25 years out of the legal profession, I was blissfully unaware that Andy Burrows is now a judge let alone Lord Andy Burrows.

I was at Manchester where he lectured in 'Remedies' (and probably other courses too in the early 80s) and I had the pleasure of being in the small group of students who took that option.

He was a very popular member of the staff, and plainly a high flyer even then. He was in good company: Harry Street, Julian Farrand, Peter Bromley, David Milman and of course Brenda. Maybe others I was fortunate enough to have been taught have flown just as high. Anyone from Manchester with any good local knowledge?

Prodders, I don't think anyone who taught me law is or was on the bench.  Many are dead.

But someone on the bench did teach me some law. I marshalled for a judge who royally fooked up the direction to the jury on the reversal of the burden of proof in a case involving the alternative defences of Provocation and Diminished responsibility to a charge of murder. When he came out of court, after being corrected tactfully by the Prosecution and restating the direction, he mumbled something about having made a mess of it and suggesting I ignore my notes and instead write a memo on the law in this area so he could redirect them if they had questions.  I did that but they didn't as they could not reach a verdict to which they were all agreed and had to be discharged. Whoops. He ended up in the House of Lords (but is now dead).

 

Yes indeed. 

Mind you, that whole "reserve the complex cases for the red judges on circuit" farce ... there he was, perhaps the leading shipping and insurance barrister of his generation, sitting on the bench in Swansea conducting a complicated trial of a young man with learning difficulties running difficult defences in a murder case. WTF.  He had a copy of  Smith & Hogan he was leafing through each night, increasingly anxiously. Smith & Hogan ffs. 

Heff

 

Edward Burn - Christ Church, property - dead 2019, but good innings

John Hopkins - Downing,  Trusts - dead 2018, too soon

Peter Glazebrook - Jesus - alive, inexplicably. Seemed close to death in the 90s.

 

heh

You should have told Anthony Lloyd about your experience!

Hobhouse became a high court judge in 1982, at the age of 50. He spent much of his time in the commercial court, where he was quick and courteous. However, he also took his turn in trying crime, at which he proved to be unexpectedly good. One has the impression that he was hardly ever reversed on a point of law.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/mar/27/guardianobituaries 

heheh - I should think it was Lord Hobhouse himself who was responsible for giving that impression. 

He was quite demanding and self-assured. 

But we all make mistakes.  To be strictly accurate, a hung jury and a retrial would not show in the "reversal stats" so he may be right.

I once spent a happy hour in a lecture of Glazebrooks drawing cartoons of his shiny wee nabba  as various everyday objects.  A bathtub, a conker, a football etc.  Great days.

He was talking about burglary iirc and spent a lot of time going into the details of that case where an opportunist goes up a ladder, sees a sleeping girl in a bedroom, goes down and takes off all of his clothes bar his socks, goes back up and has sex with her with which she complies thinking sleepily that it's her boyfriend.  A case really about consent and not burglary and so completely irrelevant to the lecture.

Ah, the great R v Collins [1973] QB 100:

"This is about as extraordinary a case as my brethren and I have ever heard either on the bench or while at the bar. Stephen William George Collins was convicted on October 29, 1971, at the Essex Assizes of burglary with intent to commit rape and he was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment. He is a 19-year old youth, and he appeals against that conviction by the certificate of the judge. The terms in which that certificate is expressed reveal that the judge was clearly troubled about the case and the conviction.

Let me relate the facts. Were they put into a novel or portrayed on the stage, they would be regarded as being so improbable as to be unworthy of serious consideration and as verging at times on farce. At about 2 o'clock in the early morning of Saturday, July 24, 1971, a young lady of 18 went to bed at her mother's home in Colchester. She had spent the evening with her boyfriend. She had taken a certain amount of drink, and it may be that this fact affords some explanation of her inability to answer satisfactorily certain crucial questions put to her at the trial.

She has the habit of sleeping without wearing night apparel in a bed which is very near the lattice-type window of her room. At one stage in her evidence she seemed to be saying that the bed was close up against the window which, in accordance with her practice, was wide open. In the photographs which we have before us, however, there appears to be a gap of some sort between the two, but the bed was clearly quite near the window.

At about 3.30 or 4 o'clock she awoke and she then saw in the moonlight a vague form crouched in the open window. She was unable to remember, and this is important, whether the form was on the outside of the window sill or on that part of the sill which was inside the room, and for reasons which will later become clear, that seemingly narrow point is of crucial importance.

The young lady then realised several things: first of all that the form in the window was that of a male; secondly that he was a naked male. and thirdly that he was a naked male with an erect penis. She also saw in the moonlight that his hair was blond. She thereupon leapt to the conclusion that her boyfriend, with whom for some time she had been on terms of regular and frequent sexual intimacy, was paying her an ardent nocturnal visit. She promptly sat up in bed, and the man descended from the sill and joined her in bed and they had full sexual intercourse. But there was something about him which made her think that things were not as they usually were between her and her boyfriend. The length of his hair, his voice as they had exchanged what was described as "love talk," and other features led her to the conclusion that somehow there was something different. So she turned on the bed-side light, saw that her companion was not her boyfriend and slapped the face of the intruder, who was none other than the defendant. He said to her, "Give me a good time tonight," and got hold of her arm, but she bit him and told him to go. She then went into the bathroom and he promptly vanished...."

A case really about consent and not burglary and so completely irrelevant to the lecture.

 

It was precisely about whether it was burglary or not because of the issue of consent as he sat on the windowsill and whether he had been a rape had occurred. He maintained she had beckoned him in. She maintained she thought he was her boyfriend and only spotted the issue after he had started having sex with her.  The English definition of the offence is illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime (not limited to theft as most people think) so the goings on as he teetered on the windowsill were relevant. Was he already over the threshold, did she beckon him in from outside?

 

Join the discussion

Login Register