header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 166, Issue 7720

28 October 2016
IN THIS ISSUE

R (on application of Ingenious Media Holdings plc and another) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] UKSC 54, [2016] All ER (D) 118 (Oct)

Peter Vaines discusses taxation of non-doms after April 2017

Sophie Horsfall follows the Supreme Court ruling on the applicable law in motor insurance accident claims against the UK compensation body

Re Elgin Legal Ltd [2016] EWHC 2523 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 124 (Oct)

Ben Fielding examines the use of technology in corporate wrongdoing

Six Continents Ltd and another company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another [2016] EWHC 2426 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 114 (Oct)

R (on the application of TDT, by his litigation friend, Topteagarden) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1912 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 213 (Jul)

John McMullen examines the conditions of TUPE

Libyan Investment Authority (incorporated under the laws of the State of Libya) v Goldman Sachs International [2016] EWHC 2530 (Ch), 2016] All ER (D) 120 (Oct)

Clare Kelly provides a round-up of recent contentious probate case law

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