THIS ISSUE
Is the Equality and Human Rights Commission still fit for purpose? What has happened to equality law? Writing in this week’s NLJ, Geoffrey Bindman QC, senior consultant, Bindmans, investigates the state of the equality enforcer.
Judge goes rogue, employees stay home, planes grounded
Looking for a digital future while dealing with ‘utter mess’ whiplash reforms
The unfortunates? Spats are brewing as the digital golden age beckons, says Dominic Regan
Is the Equality & Human Rights Commission no longer fit for purpose? Geoffrey Bindman examines its death by a thousand cuts
Ian Smith investigates a gap in protection for workers in the ‘gig economy’
English virtual council meetings? Not a remote chance. Nicholas Dobson reports
State your case!; the midnight count; up the workers; new family guidance; no bundle fun in Admin Court; look, no captain.
Masood Ahmed examines the scenario of challenging arbitral awards for inadequate reasons
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace
Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team
Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall
Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role
Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei
Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert
NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners
Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.
How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct?
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
