When is an undertaking not an undertaking, ask Caroline Shea & Siobhan Jones
Nicholas Bevan believes catastrophically injured claimants deserve better treatment from the insurance industry
Plans to reform whiplash claims will marginalise victims, says Theo Richardson-Gool
Lesage sets out what will hopefully be accepted as the correct approach to cases of apparent bias, say James Guthrie QC & Rowan Pennington-Benton
Steven King assesses the likely effectiveness of the new Scrap Metal Dealers Act
What can be done when your expert’s opinion changes? Chris Pamplin reports
What are the cost implications of psychological injuries post-Jackson, asks Dr Tim Webb
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun)
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35, [2013] All ER (D) 89 (Jun)
Philip Hanby Ltd v Clarke [2013] EWCA Civ 647, [2013] All ER (D) 107 (Jun)
MOVERS & SHAKERS
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson
Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating
Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor
West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire
Sidley—Jeremy Trinder
Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London
The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ
