header-logo header-logo

This is the second of three articles on the policies of the coalition government. The first dealt with its approach to civil liberties. This covers matters relating to the constitution. The third will cover cuts. The articles are arranged in order of praise.

PNPF Trust Company Ltd v Taylor and others went to trial in January and was widely expected to clarify the effect of two key pieces of legislation governing the funding of occupational pension schemes.

In the words of Marvin Gaye “It takes two” to love, to tango and, as we saw in the recent Isner and Mahut tennis match, to doggedly battle against each other for 11 hours. That performance on court was described as “epic”.

I had fish and chips with Sir Rupert a fortnight ago. He is as resolute as ever. His views are unchanged.

Cambridge looked characteristically beautiful during the Legal Services Research Centre’s 8th annual conference. Given the global nature of the recession, attendance held up pretty well—bolstered by a somewhat disproportionately large delegation from Australian legal centres.

First, the now familiar statistics: it lasted 12 years, sat for some 434 days, at a total cost of £191m and finally published this month, 38 years after 13 people were shot dead by the British Army on 30 January 1972. So was Lord Saville’s inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday really worth it?

Let us begin with the good news. This is the first of three articles on the coalition government’s policy relating to the law and the constitution. We start with civil liberties. There has been a lot of talk about whether the budget will be a “game changer”: the coalition’s programme for action on civil liberties certainly is. David Blunkett and John Reid, the most macho of Labour home secretaries, should be turning in their political graves. The coalition’s policy on civil liberties says as much about their failure as it does about the coalition’s own success.

Ken Clarke, the newly appointed lord chancellor, faced a dilemma within days of taking up his new job.

The most recent legal flare-up between British Airways and Unite (representing BA cabin crew) has dominated the headlines and for once it was not just labour lawyers debating whether there was a right to strike in the UK.

Lord Lester is a shrewd and experienced campaigner with an eye for where progress can be made. Publication of his draft Defamation Bill was characteristically timely. Heat is building up on this issue.

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll