header-logo header-logo

Litigation Trends Survey - Jackson a Year on

02 April 2014
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , CPR , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

In the second NLJ / LSLA litigation trends survey, James Baxter reports on how firms and practitioners are adapting to new ways of litigating post-Jackson and post-Mitchell.

If the new litigation landscape envisaged by Lord Justice Jackson has yet to be realised, how long before it is complete? This exclusive series of online surveys, conducted with the support and co-operation of London Solicitors’ Litigation Association (LSLA) members, is designed to provide a regular overview of how firms and practitioners are attempting to chart a way through to workable, cost-effective solutions post-Jackson.

Download the attached pdf to read the survey findings in full.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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