header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 167, Issue 7748

02 June 2017
IN THIS ISSUE

Doberman and another v Watson and others [2017] EWHC 1708 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 172 (May)

Modern lawyers & judges can take lessons from the 1917 case of Joseph Blackburn, says David Hewitt

In his penultimate election countdown article, Jon Robins reflects on the manifesto pleas from the Bar Council & Chancery Lane

Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362, [2017] All ER (D) 166 (May)

R (on the application of Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice (Howard League for Penal Reform intervening) [2017] UKSC 40, [2017] All ER (D) 142 (May)

R (on the application of Forsey) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWHC 1152 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 121 (May)

Working together makes the expert/instructing solicitor relationship stronger, as James Stanbury explains

Court of Appeal: Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider UK entry

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