THIS ISSUE
Spotlight on domestic abuse cases: David Burrows examines proof of controlling & coercive behaviour
Dr Chris Pamplin looks at a recent ECtHR judgment that highlights the unfairness in judicial criticism of expert witnesses & offers a possible solution
Misbehaviour in public office: John Gould examines the limitations of the Ministerial Code
"Lord Brown has clear views on the law and the legal institutions"
Experts opining on subjects outside their specialism risk being hit with a third-party costs order, as David Locke & Giles Colin explain
Brice Dickson considers the Supreme Court’s output in 2021…
"The message of Breyer is that the Supreme Court, like democracy, relies on consensus and a recognition from all institutions of faithfulness to that consensus"
Vijay Ganapathy & Walker Syachalinga examine some key issues raised in the latest rulings on personal injury
Dominic Regan delves into deductions from damages & namechecks some particularly special specialists
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
