header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 169, Issue 7846

28 June 2019
IN THIS ISSUE
NLJ's Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week's 28 June 2019 issue. 

None of us should be surprised by the recurring threat of outside competition, says Roderick Ramage

Is the Tate a public authority? Nicholas Dobson examines a recent ruling on nuisance & nosiness

The new Electronic Communications Code: James Tipler & Paul Letman share seven key takeaways 18 months on from implementation

Jennifer Haywood uncovers some valuable lessons on proprietary estoppel from recent Court of Appeal decisions

Charities should be aware of the risks as well as the benefits when partnering with non-charities, says Bethan Walsh

Mussell v Patience makes it clear that litigation costs principles differ from estate costs principles, as Chris Williams & Henrietta Mason explain

Divorce bill conclusive; lift news; case pipeline; CICB change; appealing odds

Elis Gomer discusses the rise of the DIY will: more trouble than it’s worth?

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll