Summary of the impact

Olowofoyeku's research on judicial accountability challenges long-established norms in the Anglo- American legal traditions. These challenges have been recognised by judicial authorities at the highest levels and have influenced and informed practitioner and judicial debates on the matter. While no changes have yet been made to the law as a result of this research, the limits of the current principles, as highlighted in Olowofoyeku's research, particularly in respect of the flaws of the common law construct of the informed observer, have been confronted and recognised by judges in their decisions, and also by practitioners.

Summary of the impact

This case describes Professor Moran's research on perceptions, expectations and experiences of sexual orientation discrimination and how they affect the lives of those who work in the justice and legal services sector. His impact has been two-fold. His research has informed policy development, reform initiatives and operational practice within the Judicial Appointments Committee. And he has raised the profile of sexual orientation which previously had not featured on the diversity agenda in the legal professional and justice sector. Raising awareness of sexual orientation as a diversity characteristic has led to campaigns and training initiatives to support career development for LGBT legal professionals.

Summary of the impact

The statutory definition of "insolvency" involves proving a debtor's "inability to pay debts." In corporate insolvency, this definition is found in s123 Insolvency Act 1986. Although s123 has existed for over a hundred years (in various forms), its meaning has not been fully understood. The historical explanation of this definition, found in the underpinning research, as to the true meaning of the definition, has been adopted by the Supreme Court (in May 2013) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail [2013] UKSC 28 in overruling the Court of Appeal's "point of no return" interpretation of s123.

Summary of the impact

Malleson and Barmes' research at QMUL on how to promote equality and diversity has influenced policy and legislation through its impact on a number of official bodies, including the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity in 2009/10, the House of Lords Constitution Committee Inquiry on Judicial Appointments in 2011/12, the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Equality Bill in 2009, the Advisory Panel for the selection of judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union (`CJEU') in 2010 and also of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (`CICC') in 2011. As founder members of the Equal Justices Initiative (`EJI') and of the AHRC research network, `Promoting Equality and Diversity through Economic Crisis' (`PEDEC'), their research has also informed public and policy understanding of equality and diversity issues more widely.

Summary of the impact

Judicial studies is a new research field in the UK and operates in the highly confidential arena of judicial policy and practice, where the impact of research in producing change is often not publicly stated. But pioneering empirical work by UCL's Judicial Institute (UCLJI) and Centre for International Courts and Tribunals (CICT) has had tangible and acknowledged impacts on judicial selection and training policies and practices in the UK, Europe and at the international court level. The research impacts include:

• Improved fairness of judicial selection practices;
• Reduced barriers to judicial diversity;
• Improved data collection on judicial appointments;
• Improved education and training for judges and aspiring judges;
• Improved government, judicial and public understanding of the barriers to judicial diversity.