header-logo header-logo

29 March 2024
Issue: 8065 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding , Procedure & practice , In Court
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: The Lords deliver the goods; plus the ‘ultimate’ late settlement

166028
Professor Dominic Regan aka The insider cheers the arrival in the House of Lords of a Bill to reverse the effects of PACCAR, in this week’s NLJ

He notes the dire warnings and grim predictions on access to funding following the Supreme Court’s decision last year—hopefully now to be resolved.

Regan writes: The true stroke of genius is clause 1(4), which provides that the amendments are to be treated as always having had effect. Isn’t retrospective legislation wonderful!’

Regan, of City Law School, also relays the latest on fixed recoverable costs and reveals his discovery of ‘the ultimate late settlement of a claim in English legal history’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
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? 
back-to-top-scroll