header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 159, Issue 7374

18 June 2009
IN THIS ISSUE

Are eco warriors holding employers to ransom? asks Caroline Doran

Samantha Morgan & Philip Munro lift the lid on MPs’ taxes & expenses

Ul-Haq and others v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542, [2009] All ER (D)
71 (Jun)

Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading and Commerce Inc; The Reborn [2009] EWCA Civ 531, [2009] All ER (D) 83 (Jun)

A local authority has lost its £1m claim against a chief executive who they claimed failed to disclose previous stress-related illnesses in her job application.

News In Brief

Michael Tringham reports on celebrity intestacy turmoil

News In Brief

Civil liberties

Glynis Craig says all soldiers have human rights

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll