A couple of meta comments on the weekend’s legal related issues. 1) If I said something here in my private capacity which profoundly went against my firm’s stated values, I would expect there to be serious consequences for me. This is not about freedom of speech.
2) As a solicitor, I can choose what cases and clients I take on. Barristers can’t - if I instruct a barrister, they must do their best for the client whether or not they agree with the client’s position or like the client. This is very important. >
It means everyone can get a barrister who will argue their case as strongly as it can be argued within the law. I’ve instructed barristers who have previously argued against the legal argument I want to put forward now. I do this because they are good at their job, not because>
I think they are morally attached to the position that they argued before. Lawyers are mostly hired guns. I have argued diametrically opposed legal positions on defending possession claims, for example, where it was in the client’s interests >
A conversation I have to have with nearly every client is the difference between the law and moral judgment (or indeed justice). We do law. At the very best, we can try to drag it into an area vaguely bounding justice. And the other side’s lawyers are just doing their job >
doing their best for their client, within the law (by and large). There is no point in being outraged, I say to my clients, that they aren’t overwhelmed by the sheer justice of your case. >
So, people really need to understand that by and large, lawyers don’t make a case because they believe it, they make it because it is legally arguable and in their client’s interests - for they must act in their client’s interests. And barristers, for extremely good reasons >
don’t get to choose what instructions to accept if it is something they are competent to handle. Nobody’s case should be at the mercy of the personal morality and views of individual barristers. Access to justice is not just for the likeable.
(Of course, the extra curricular, unpaid, legislative drafting and advice stuff that I do, I do because I believe in it. But that is a whole different ball game.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts ahead of the debate on building safety and the costs of remediation that Labour intend to force on Monday, and on the cladding/fire safety fiasco in general. This may be a lengthy thread (oh hell it is)… 1/23
It surely cannot be questioned that the absolute priority is that these buildings are fixed. Maybe hundreds of thousands of leaseholders (or their tenants) are living in unsafe, unmortgageable, unsellable properties. It is destroying lives and the property market.. 2/23
et alone the risk of another disaster and loss of life. So, the question is, has to be, how best to achieve the fixing of these buildings. As things currently stand, outside of the limits of the £1.6 billion in ACM and Non ACM remediation grants provided by the Govt, … 3/23
Watched the @CommonsHCLG evidence of @team_greenhalgh Some thoughts on the minister’s position on the draft Building Safety Bill, with a particular view on the position of leaseholders.
First, they are continuing to explore ‘buildings with multiple owners’ - I’m not surprised as multiple accountable persons would be a nightmare. Second ‘we need to hear the voice of residents’ - well yes, but apparently have not done so so far, which is, you know, a bit late.
Thirdly, ‘could learn from Australia’ - no signs of having done so at all… Fourthly ‘looking at these costs, trying to unblock the finances, and make sure costs to leaseholders affordable, but nothing to report now’ says Expert Adviser Michael Wade (insurer background) -
Via @Lees_Martina (and @PeteApps ) we now have a sense of how bad the cladding crisis is. The Govt’s (non-ACM) fund for remedial works had 2,957 blocks registered. (The fund would cover about 600 blocks.) That is a quarter of all high rise blocks in England.
Add to that the 300 or so blocks with ACM cladding remaining. These 3257 are the blocks with identified issues, and that met the initial requirements of the Govt’s scheme. There will be more where issues not yet identified.
There will be many more blocks under 18m height with issues as well. Of blocks that have had an EWS1 inspection so far, 92% have failed. Even though it is likely that blocks with known issues, or likely issues, would be inspected first, that is a staggering percentage.
Round up of today in possession proceedings - what we know, what we don’t, and things to look out for. Civil Procedure Rule 55.29 is amended to extend the general stay on possession claims (including evictions) from 23 August to 20 September 2020
The text of amendments is not available yet. Also unclear is what happens to Practice Direction 55C - the reactivation notice and ‘information on impact of coronavirus on the Defendant’s household’ direction. All the dates in it are now wrong. Will see if amended or withdrawn.
The Housing Secretary of State has announced that the Govt “intends” to extend the notice period on Notices Seeking Possession (s.21, s.8, or Housing Act 1985 or Housing Act 1988) to 6 months from the current 3 months, until at least March 2021.
Working on Draft Building Safety Bill. The Regulator can ask the Minister to make regulations on a matter if it would potentially cause a ‘major incident’. Major Incident is defined as (a) a significant number of deaths, or
(b) serious injury to a significant number of people.
(S.17(6)). But there is no definition of ‘significant number' of deaths/injuries. Are we going to end up with arguments over how many deaths are a ’significant number’? Personally, I'd go with one, but there would appear to be room for argument.
What is a ‘higher-risk building’, you might ask, given that everything applies to higher-risk buildings? Well, it is a ‘building of a prescribed description’ (s.19(1)). So, no-one will know until the Secretary of State has made regulations. Uncertainty is so bracing.