15 Comments
User's avatar
Paul Stockton's avatar

So will the historic word "Chancery" still linger on in the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber?

Michael George's avatar

We’ve come a long way since Jarndyce v Jarndyce!

John Macleod's avatar

It won’t open for me, strangely 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

If you are referring to the video, please refresh the page and try again. The original video was taken down by the judicial office for technical reasons and immediately replaced. I then updated this web page.

James Turner's avatar

The old Probate, Admiralty & Divorce division was pretty "historic and confusing", too!

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

"Wills, wives and wrecks", as you recall.

James Turner's avatar

I do indeed. The late James Turner KC did wives; I do wrecks; sadly we never completed the set.

David Clarke's avatar

Does this mean that those now designated as QBD Commercial Court judges will no longer try crime on circuit?

David Burrows's avatar

Will not many family disputes where eg parties or civil partners are not married/civil partnered now be categorised as 'business and property'; or have I missed something?

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

I think it's up to the claimant/applicant to decide where to bring a case — though I think it's also possible to transfer a case to another division. But others may know better.

David Burrows's avatar

Sorry: I said I feared not to the first two clauses of your reply. Cohabitation law is a major bone for contention amongst many family lawyers.

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

Fine; I shouldn't have speculated. I'll let others respond.

David Burrows's avatar

I fear not. Supreme Court Act 1981 Sch 1 sets out what family proceedings are assigned to the Family Division (and thus to the Family Court); and that emphatically does not family breakdown - as many cohabitation law lawyers well know - where a couple is not married. You may have parallel proceedings over children in the Family Court. It is such a shame the LCJ did not consider this; though - it being UK and a question of marriage or civil partnership - an eruptive change to substantive law would be needed..

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

Fine; I shouldn't have speculated. I'll let others respond.