This article delves into the doctrine of inherent powers within the Sudanese Civil Procedure Code, with a specific focus on its origin, nature and scope. It posits that this doctrine empowers the courts to undertake actions essential for fulfilling their duties and ensuring the pursuit of justice, even in instances where such powers are not explicitly granted to them under statutory provisions. Additionally, the article examines the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with inherent powers and contemplates whether their exercise might pose a threat to the rule of law. It also explores the arguments both in favour of and against the possibility of rule-making within the framework of these powers and the potential impact of such regulations on the administration of justice. The article asserts that while a court's inherent powers are indispensable for the efficient dispensation of justice, it is imperative that they are not wielded capriciously or arbitrarily. Instead, their exercise should be guided by the principles of equity and good conscience.

The establishment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) is often still regarded today as an unequivocal success story, especially compared to the troubles experienced by kindred institutions elsewhere. For non-specialist audiences, it would even seem that its performance has only recently been cast in a more negative light, pursuant to the pushback of the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Weiss/PSPP saga. The current article aims to unpack a collection of shortcomings that have accumulated gradually and persist right up to the present, which have however not been interrogated in sufficient depth so far. It starts off with a contextual depiction of the tug-of-war between the supranational and the national judiciaries, juxtaposing the earlier confrontations with contemporary debates and controversies. Subsequently, attention is drawn to the sustained imperfections of the judicial selection and appointment process, addressing a few pervasive questions of institutional propriety. Hereafter, the article engages in a meta-analysis of ongoing discussions on the quality of the case law, testing the veracity of popular contentions pertaining to its constant variability. Lastly, it canvasses the pressures and agitations internal to the CJEU that have become increasingly manifest since the creation of the Court of First Instance. Overall, this fourfold re-appraisal aims to put back on record some of the B-sides on the sountrack of the new legal order, so as to compensate for the lack of airplay they have received hitherto.

This article discusses an oral history doctoral research project about the little known, yet critical role of the court clerk in Crown Courts. It is surprising that even though Crown Court clerks have been pivotal in trials of the most serious criminal offences, they have been neglected in legal scholarship. This research project has contributed towards filling an absence in the academic literature about the nature and function of their vital work between 1972 and 2015, and was carried out by Dvora Liberman, in partnership with the London School of Economics Legal Biography Project and National Life Stories, British Library.

Historically, civil justice has been conceived as a concentration of non–criminal matters, including several heterogeneous procedures, and that is the main reason why it has been subject of study in several countries in Latin America where procedure reforms are being designed, implemented or evaluated. Santiago Pereira Campos examines justice systems in Latin America in collaboration with Alejandra Pírez Ledesma who worked with him on this article.