header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 157, Issue 7258

01 February 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

Marianne Butler reviews the airlines’ defence to rebut compensation claims for cancelled flights

Tess Gill considers the effects of recent rulings
on call-out time in the working week

Can legislation keep pace with technological developments? asks Stefan Fafinski

Fourie v Le Roux and others
[2007] UKHL 1, [2007] All ER (D) 171 (Jan)

RESIDENCE: THE LATEST APPROACH

Julian Samiloff discusses proposals to criminalise the possession of violent and extreme pornography online

Negligence has changed since Donoghue v Stevenson—and not for the better, argues Jon Holbrook

The Insider deplores Channel 4’s ratings-motivated exploitation of heinous housemates

The slippery concept of the rule of law is still worth fighting for, says Roger Smith

EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

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? 
back-to-top-scroll