Former Attorneys General to give evidence

11 Nov 2025News

On 12th November, former Attorneys General will present evidence regarding the sub judice resolution to the Committee

The Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is set to hear evidence from a trio of former Attorneys General on Wednesday, 12th November. The inquiry will focus on the sub judice resolution, a critical rule that governs the interaction between parliamentary discussions and ongoing judicial proceedings. The session is scheduled to begin at 14:45 and will feature Rt. Hon Sir Michael Ellis KBE, KC, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve KC, and Rt. Hon Sir Jeremy Wright MP, KC.

Each of these former Attorneys General brings significant experience regarding the sub judice rule, both as members of Parliament and through their oversight of legal proceedings while in office. Their insights will be invaluable in assessing whether the current resolution, established in 2001, remains clear and easily understandable for MPs. Witnesses will be queried on whether they believe the rule is overly restrictive, and how their roles influenced their interactions with the resolution during their tenures.

The inquiry has arisen as a response to the Speaker's request for a comprehensive review of the sub judice resolution's effects on the legislative process. The purpose of the resolution is to maintain an essential separation between the courts and the House of Commons, thus preventing Parliament from influencing court outcomes or acting as a forum for resolving judicial cases. The importance of Parliament as a venue for discussing matters of public interest stands in contrast with the need for courts to carry out their work without external pressures, ensuring justice is served efficiently and fairly.

The Committee's examination will seek to determine whether the existing rules still effectively balance parliamentary discourse with the primacy of the court system. As the session will be broadcast live on Parliament Live, it promises to engage a wider audience in this significant exploration of legal and legislative boundaries

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

UK to raise social media age limit

The UK plans to increase the minimum age for social media access to 16, following Australia's lead addressing online safety for children

SPP urges HMRC to reconsider pension tax

The Society of Pension Professionals has called on HMRC to address concerns over inheritance tax on pensions to avoid confusion for families affected by bereavement

Progress in cleaning up Companies House

A new report highlights ongoing improvements to the Companies House register aimed at tackling economic crime

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...