[{"topic":"Civil law","id":"44095","proposer":"11420","edm":"2987","session":"2010-12","title":"Expert Evidence And Hon. Members","text":"That this House believes that hon. Members should be permitted to refer the work of incompetent experts working in Family Courts to the General Medical Council, Health Professions Council or other regulators without facing the risk of proceedings for contempt of court; and calls for Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2009 SI\/2009\/857 to be changed to permit this.","date":"2012-04-19","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"42819","proposer":"24831","edm":"1762","session":"2010-12","title":"Civil Litigation Costs Reform","text":"That this House expresses concern that the Government's proposals for reform to the costs regime for civil litigation will have particularly devastating consequences for human rights claims against multinational corporations (MNCs); notes that the costs of taking such cases often significantly exceeds the amount of compensation awarded; believes that, far from perpetuating a litigation culture, the no win no fee model enables a more level playing field between claimants and MNCs and that claimants' lawyers shoulder a significant financial burden throughout the duration of each case as well as the risk of losing all the costs incurred if the case is unsuccessful; calls on the Government to re-think the abolition of success fees so that MNCs will continue to have to pay a success fee in the event that a case against them is successful; supports the introduction of contingency fees so that claimants will not be forced to pay for costs out of their compensation; and further calls for the definition of proportionality used to include specific reference to international victims of MNCs' activities.","date":"2011-04-27","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"42687","proposer":"24892","edm":"1636","session":"2010-12","title":"Libel Reform","text":"That this House welcomes the publication of the draft Defamation Bill as an essential step towards the necessary and urgent reform of the UK's outdated and unbalanced libel laws; notes that libel reform is a manifesto commitment from all three major parties, and was included in the Coalition programme; recognises that English libel law must allow individual citizens to be able to sue for libel when they have been the victim of false, irresponsible and damaging publications; further welcomes the inclusion of a new public interest defence in the draft Bill which should protect investigative journalism; believes this public interest defence should be strengthened to protect the citizen critic; further welcomes proposals in the Bill to raise the threshold of harm before action can be taken, to create statutory defences of truth and honest opinion, to introduce a single publication rule for the internet, and to reduce libel tourism; further believes that effective libel reform can only be delivered, and the chilling or censorious impact of bullying behaviour reduced, if companies and corporations are restricted to the use of malicious falsehood actions and if internet service providers and non-editorial web-hosts are only liable consequent to a specific order of a court, and welcomes the consultation on both these issues; applauds the efforts of the Libel Reform Campaign and hon. Members from all sides of the House in support of free expression; and looks forward to the draft Bill being strengthened as it goes through the scrutiny process.","date":"2011-03-21","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"40120","proposer":"11427","edm":"542","session":"2009-10","title":"Victimisation In The Workplace","text":"That this House recognises that people who are victimised in the workplace or treated unfairly in the recruitment process need to be able to challenge employers and seek redress; understands that a very small number of serial litigants are abusing this right for financial gain and condemns their actions; does not accept that these individuals are a big problem, and does not believe that measures designed to expose them should jeopardise the employment prospects of the vast majority of genuine victims; further condemns the launch of a website by Gordon Turner of Partners Employment Lawyers and Damian McCarthy from Cloisters Chambers which allows employers to find out if a person has taken an employer to tribunal in the past; believes that such a website could be used to screen unfairly applicants who have legitimately taken their employer to tribunal in the past, which runs contrary to the Government's progress on dealing with the victimisation of trade union members; is concerned that such a website would be in breach of data protection laws; and calls on the Information Commissioner's Office to investigate whether the website is compliant with the Data Protection Act.","date":"2010-01-06","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"40034","proposer":"10586","edm":"423A1","session":"2009-10","title":"Libel Law Reform","text":"after `publishing;', insert `further believes that the libel laws discriminate against average and low paid people when victims of defamatory comment in the pages of national publications;'.","date":"2009-12-14","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"39987","proposer":"10261","edm":"423","session":"2009-10","title":"Libel Law Reform","text":"That this House notes that human rights activists, scientists, writers and journalists are prevented from publishing, and the public prevented from reading, matters of strong public interest due to the chilling effect of English libel law; further notes that libel actions in England and Wales cost 100 times more than the European average; further notes that the costs of defending a libel case are usually prohibitive and that even successful defendants do not recover their full costs; and further notes the report of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights which criticises English libel law for its stifling of free expression globally due to libel tourism whereby foreign complainants bring cases against foreign writers for alleged libel in overseas publications; believes that public interest is endangered by powerful vested interests and corporations being able to intimidate writers into not publishing; recognises the recent report by Index on Censorship and English PEN, Free speech is not for sale andfurther notes the campaign for scientific freedom by Sense About Science; welcomes the formation of the Libel Reform Coalition to campaign for law reform; and calls for a re-casting of the libel laws such that, while individual reputation is protected against malicious or reckless smears, lawful free expression is not chilled and there is a fully effective public interest defence for both scholarship and responsible journalism.","date":"2009-12-09","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"39176","proposer":"11812","edm":"1951","session":"2008-09","title":"Supreme Court Of England And Wales (S.i., 2009, No. 1498)","text":"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1498), dated 10 June 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 June, be annulled.","date":"2009-07-20","status":"o"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"34644","proposer":"11923","edm":"511","session":"2007-08","title":"Cumbria Domestic Violence Partnership","text":"That this House acknowledges the Cumbria Domestic Violence Partnership as a beacon of good practice in tackling domestic violence; notes that domestic violence makes up 14 per cent. of all reported violent crime in the county but that only 35 per cent. of incidents of domestic violence are actually reported; commends the work of the Cumbria Domestic Violence Partnership in prioritising the safety of victims and the needs of their children, holding perpetrators accountable for their actions and supporting them in changing their behaviour, and challenging views about the nature of domestic violence; and enthusiastically supports the work of the Partnership as it seeks to have an even greater impact.","date":"2007-12-06","status":"c"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"34402","proposer":"13735","edm":"291","session":"2007-08","title":"Cafcass And Private Family Law","text":"That this House is concerned that under the existing operating conditions of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service there is little or no opportunity for defendants to question evidence presented at court, the exercise of the right of appeal is made extremely difficult and the process under private family law is not open and transparent; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to do all that it can to ensure justice is done and individuals are treated as innocent until proven guilty within this closed court system as they are in all other United Kingdom courts.","date":"2007-11-15","status":"c"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"34216","proposer":"11420","edm":"126","session":"2007-08","title":"Solicitors And The Family Court Processes","text":"That this House notes the comments of a senior social worker that meetings have been held during which solicitors acting for parents have discussed how to undermine the cases of their clients; further notes that there are many odd cases in which solicitors fail to oppose care proceedings or accept that the section 31 threshold has been met notwithstanding the opposition of their clients; recognises that reporting and obtaining the investigation of such behaviour outwith parliamentary proceedings remains a contempt of court for hon. Members; and asks the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to review the implementation of the new solicitors' code of conduct and how this relates to conflicts of interest in the Family Court.","date":"2007-11-07","status":"c"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"34217","proposer":"11420","edm":"127","session":"2007-08","title":"Family Courts","text":"That this House regrets the Government's proposals to retain secrecy within the family courts; believes that this secrecy permeates bad practice throughout the whole system of children services; feels that it is possible to protect the identity of the child while allowing parents to talk and seek advice publicly about their treatment in the family courts, and that professional witnesses should be uniquely identified to monitor consistency; further believes that every case should have an anonymised judgement handed to the parents that they can discuss publicly; and calls on the Government to recognise that there are very serious problems in the system that have been postponed rather than resolved by the limited proposals contained within the consultation document.","date":"2007-11-07","status":"c"},{"topic":"Civil law","id":"34219","proposer":"11420","edm":"129","session":"2007-08","title":"Public Family Law And Solicitors","text":"That this House notes that it is common practice for a firm of solicitors to perform outsourced work for a local authority and also to represent parents when parties in cases against the same local authority; notes and is surprised that this conflict of interest is acceptable under the professional conduct rules; understands that some parents would be surprised to find that this is the case; and calls for the Law Society to require that parents be asked to confirm in writing that they recognise that the firm they are instructing is conflicted in this way as part of the client engagement process.","date":"2007-11-07","status":"c"}]