header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 169, Issue 7831

08 March 2019
IN THIS ISSUE

That bereaved families have so little hope of obtaining legal aid for inquests is indicative of the UK’s broken system, says Jonathan Wheeler

In this month’s employment brief, Ian Smith examines the long shadow cast by the infamous ‘gay cake case’ & takes a look at some exceptions to the unfair dismissal rule

Aziz Rahman considers the implications of a possible increase in the use of unexplained wealth orders by enforcement agencies

In the first of a two-part series, Rawdon Crozier investigates ‘the Housing Act trap’…& plots a potential escape

Mark Pawlowski asks whether there is a duty to disclose the gruesome history of a house on the sale of a property

New CPR updates; pleading shorthand blessed; week’s pay fattened up; (no) time to pay.

In the first part of a series of three articles, Simon Parsons investigates judicial review of executive action

Geoffrey Bindman reflects on the life & career of Lord Birkenhead

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