header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 158, Issue 7304

17 January 2008
IN THIS ISSUE

Charter plc v City Index Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1382, [2007] All ER (D) 361 (Dec)

Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 1324, [2007] All ER (D) 212 (Dec)

Crane v Canons Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352, [2007] All ER (D) 281 (Dec)

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Ware restores stability to the law on bias, says Nicholas Dobson

R v Muse [2007] EWHC 2924 (QB)

Is there any hope for campaigners who want to see the ban on hunting with dogs overthrown? Neil Parpworth reports

Tinkering with established exhumation procedures, could get the government into trouble, argue Steven Gallagher and Frederick Cosgrove-Gibson

Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3487)

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