header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 164, Issue 7606

16 May 2014
IN THIS ISSUE

Should all workers be extended the same floor of rights, asks Charles Pigott

Michael Zander QC does not support the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mitchell

David Burrows addresses the issue of set aside orders

Cathy Kelly is a living, breathing case for structured settlements, says Richard Fraser

Jim Sharkey & Helen Mulcahy analyse a raft of recent fraud cases

Kaneria v The England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd [2014] EWHC 1348 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 45 (May)

R (on the application of Andrews) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2014] EWHC 1435 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 72 (May)

R (on the application of Newby Foods Ltd) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) [2014] EWHC 1340 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 49 (May)

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll