header-logo header-logo

17 May 2024 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 8071 / Categories: Opinion , Privacy , In Court
printer mail-detail

The insider: 17 May 2024

172572
Dominic Regan (not pictured) takes us on a rollercoaster ride of celebrity tipples & strange judicial behaviour

Hugh Grant has stolen my thunder. For the past 25 years, I have sought to explain the wonders of Pt 36. Last month he introduced the measure to the British public. He explained that he had been compelled to settle his phone-hacking action against The Sun. Those dreadful defendants had made what he described as an ‘enormous’ Pt 36 offer. He had been compelled to accept since he would otherwise have faced a multimillion-pound adverse costs liability. One can take it that the offer was perhaps double what a judge would award and so there was zero prospect of him beating the offer to settle. The last time I saw him with his wife was at the River Café, where I was celebrating my birthday. I had a glass of champagne. Intriguingly, the Grants—who were at the next table—each had a bottle of beer. Strange but true.

A number of High Court

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll