header-logo header-logo

Employment

Subscribe

MOBILITY AND/OR REDUNDANCY

In the first of two articles, Nicholas Bevan explains why Thompstone represents a sea change for future care claims

The ECtHR ruling in Boyle calls into question the rules surrounding pre-trial detention, say Tim Lawson-Cruttenden and Lacie Kerner

Triggs v GAB Robins (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 17, [2008] All ER (D) 266 (Jan)

Discrimination

RECOVERY OF LOST CONTRACTUAL BENEFITS

Most practitioners will already be aware of the decision in Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd; Topping v Benchtown Ltd; Grieves v F T Everard & Sons [2007] UKHL 39, [2007] 4 All ER 1047.

McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] EWCA Civ 4, [2008] All ER (D) 54 (Jan)

Alexander Ruck Keene considers the role of human rights in the regulation of care professionals

Employment Law

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll