header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE

Issue: Vol 158, Issue 7340

14 October 2009
IN THIS ISSUE

Treharne v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] All ER (D) 120 (Sep)

Birch v University College Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 2237, [2008] All ER (D) 113 (Sep)

Bennett v Governing Body of Pennoweth School [2008] All ER (D) 112 (Sep)

R (on the application of Limbu and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2008] EWHC 2261 (Admin) [2008] All ER (D) 122 (Sep)

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority [2008] EWHC 2207 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 18 (Oct)

Zeynalov v BP Exploration (Caspian Sea) Ltd (EAT, 3 July 2008)

Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 116

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 6) [2008] EWHC 2220 (TCC), [2008] All ER (D) 04 (Oct)

What's reasonable and what's best? By Sara Partington and Kirk Page

Janna Purdie considers how courts deal with the addition/substitution of parties after the expiry of limitation periods

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll