header-logo header-logo

Victory for Chichester court

12 July 2018
Issue: 7801 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers in the Chichester area have won an important legal fight—to keep their court open. The existing court building was one of 86 due to close as part of a money-saving cull by the Ministry of Justice, but will now stay open until alternative arrangements are confirmed as suitable. A council building has been identified as an appropriate replacement and will play host to 100 days per year of civil and family proceedings. The campaign to keep justice provision in Chichester was led by family law solicitor Edward Cooke and Hogan Lovells acted pro bono in the proceedings.

Issue: 7801 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll