header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 157, Issue 7284

02 August 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

When will courts waive the without prejudice rule for mediation? Chloe Carswell reports

Richard Burger and William Dodsworth report on the Horseracing Regulatory Authority’s report into inside information

R (on the application of the Southwark Law Centre) v Legal Services Commission R (on the application of Dennis) v Legal Services Commission [2007] EWHC 1715 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 325 (Jul)

Unusual family circumstances require flexible enforcement policies, says Danielle Messenger

Judge Irongirdle laments the inadequacies of claimants in person and district judges

The House of Lords has clarified the meaning of public functions. Nicholas Dobson explains

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll