header-logo header-logo

Giles Salmond—Eversheds

11 December 2013
Issue: 7588 / Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-detail

New partner for tax team

Eversheds has appointed Giles Salmond as a partner in its London tax team, where he will lead the VAT disputes and indirect taxes practice. Giles has represented a wide variety of companies across all sectors. He practised for six years at the Solicitor’s Office for HM Customs and Excise where he undertook complex prosecution work and latterly civil VAT and customs duty litigation, including many appearances before the VAT and Duties Tribunals. Giles then joined Garretts, the law firm associated with Andersen, before transitioning to Andersen and then Deloitte in 2002, where he became a Director in 2006.

Issue: 7588 / Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll