header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 159, Issue 7354

29 January 2009
IN THIS ISSUE

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 12, [2009] All ER (D) 137 (Jan)

Maher and another v Groupama Grand Est, [2009] EWHC 38 (QB), [2009] All ER (D) 183 (Jan)

Jonathan Cohen reports on chinks in the armour of the arbitration award

Amanda Wadey outlines the main changes to the CPR coming into force on 6 April 2009.

This update is provided by Current Awareness and News

Regulation

Jones v Environcom Ltd [2009] EWHC 16 (Comm), [2009] All ER (D) 115 (Jan)

News in brief

Part two: Andrew Burns unravels the strands of the asbestos “trigger” trial

Part 1: Mediation or expert determination? Emma Sadler considers the alternatives to litigation

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll