header-logo header-logo

05 January 2012
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Greenwich law

Withdrawal of funds from Community Law Centre "lawful"

Greenwich Council acted lawfully in withdrawing funding from Greenwich Community Law Centre in November, the High Court has held.

Mr Justice Cranston, with “considerable regret”, dismissed the law centre’s judicial review shortly before Christmas.

In R (on the application of Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich Council [2011] EWHC 3463(Admin), the law centre challenged the council’s decision-making process and claimed it failed to have regard for the consequences, particularly on its existing vulnerable clients. However, Cranston J said the centre received more than six months’ notice and there was no flaw in the council’s process. He praised the centre and said it would be a “sad day” if it closed.

Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll