THIS ISSUE
It’s been 15 years since the Fraud Act 2006 took effect, and the scale and types of fraud have changed considerably.
The question of how to calculate holiday pay for workers on variable hours has been addressed by the Supreme Court decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel.
They’re massive, big money, headline-grabbing and share-price rocking—and possibly coming to a court near you! At least, that’s if the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) continues on its current path of greenlighting opt-out collective proceedings.
Recent incursions by the government into the rule of law and associated citizens’ freedoms have disturbing parallels in history, and should not be ignored, Geoffrey Bindman KC writes in this week’s NLJ.
With political divisions growing ever more pronounced, demonetisation is emerging as one of the principal weapons deployed to silence debate, argues David Locke
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s desire to breathe life into the collective proceedings regime is clear from its CPO approval rate & reluctance to strike out or summarily dismiss claims: Cameron Laing assesses the impact of its approach thus far
Sarah King looks at the various scenarios and conundrums facing employers of workers on variable hours
15 years on, can the Fraud Act 2006 keep up with the pace of change? Stewart Hey & Abigail Rushton weigh up its successes & shortcomings
Can anti-bribery & corruption compliance programmes assist corporates with environmental, social & governance risks? Liam Naidoo & Kevin O’Connor consider the evidence
Stephen Gold discovers how the law was coping with war—and how lawyers were coping with its ending—as he dips into the 1943 and 1945 archives
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu
Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department
Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus
Firm announces appointment of next chair
Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker
Director joins corporate team from the US
NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection?
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
