A £4,000 Bar scholarship has been launched jointly by the Sikh Education Council and employment and commercial barrister Mukhtiar Singh. The Guru Nanak Social Mobility Scholarship aims to improve access to the Bar for financially or socially disadvantaged individuals and to promote discourse on Sikh jurisprudence. Applicants, who will need to submit a 2,500 to 3,500 word essay, must apply by 4pm on 3 September. For more information, see: http://singhbarrister.co.uk/scholarship. Sikh Education Council Chairperson Dr Pargat Singh said: ‘We are so delighted to work with barrister Mukhtiar Singh on this project. He is a diligent professional who continues to make a difference every day with his work.’
31 May 2018
Guru Nanak Scholarship launched
MOVERS & SHAKERS
NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers
From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others
DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle
DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners
Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay
Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser
NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
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?
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
