header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 166, Issue 7686

12 February 2016
IN THIS ISSUE

Rutherford and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 29, [2016] All ER (D) 208 (Jan)

Nicholas Dobson inspects a rare case of cross-examination in judicial review

“Perhaps most striking is his recognition of how things could be better”

Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 50 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 159 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Project Management Institute) v Minister for the Cabinet Office and others [2016] EWCA Civ 21, [2016] All ER (D) 167 (Jan)

Peter Breakey reports on the SRA clampdown on private correspondence

“The devil is in the detail”

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll