header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 163, Issue 7561

24 May 2013
IN THIS ISSUE

The law in relation to secondary psychiatric injury is almost universally accepted to be a mess, says Keith Patten

Solicitors must take care when handling client accounts, warns Simon Love

When is a tenancy deposit not a tenancy deposit? Mathew McDermott reports on Johnson v Old

Peter Vaines ponders the intelligent businessman & pesky postal services

Wyatt v Vince [2013] EWCA Civ 495, [2013] All ER (D) 96 (May)

Joint Stock Company “Aeroflot Russian Airlines” v Berezovsky and others [2013] EWHC 1210 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 158 (May)

RC Brewery Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] EWHC 1184 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 130 (May)

Dhunna v Creditsights Ltd UKEAT/0246/12/LA, [2013] All ER (D) 133 (May)

R (on the application of Barclay and another) v Secretary of State for Justice and others [2013] EWHC 1183 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 123 (May)

Darbyshire v Turpin and another [2013] EWHC 954 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 161 (May)

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll