header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 168, Issue 7787

29 March 2018
IN THIS ISSUE

Criminal barristers have voted to take direct action from Sunday, 1 April in response to the revised Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which is due to take effect on the same day.

Without an injection of faith & finance from the government, Richard Hoyle predicts a bleak future for the young Criminal Bar

Mark Rowlands reports on the value a chief executive can add to a modern set of chambers

What safeguards for human rights post-Brexit? Geoffrey Bindman reports

In a new series, Michel Reznik reports on increased support for the Financial Services Tribunal & the momentum for change

The inevitable lot of mankind? Amy Proferes on ‘mistake’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002

Anomalies persist in the protection of pregnant women against dismissal, as Charles Pigott explains

Laura Hughes & Rebecca Dziobon provide an overview on the scope & nature of non-matrimonial property

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