header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 160, Issue 7424

01 July 2010
IN THIS ISSUE

Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010 (SI 2010/Draft)

Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/1651)

Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing by EEA Practitioners) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(SI 2010/1673)

First, the now familiar statistics: it lasted 12 years, sat for some 434 days, at a total cost of £191m and finally published this month, 38 years after 13 people were shot dead by the British Army on 30 January 1972. So was Lord Saville’s inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday really worth it?

Let us begin with the good news. This is the first of three articles on the coalition government’s policy relating to the law and the constitution. We start with civil liberties. There has been a lot of talk about whether the budget will be a “game changer”: the coalition’s programme for action on civil liberties certainly is. David Blunkett and John Reid, the most macho of Labour home secretaries, should be turning in their political graves. The coalition’s policy on civil liberties says as much about their failure as it does about the coalition’s own success.

Juliet Carp reports on how to manage employee business connections

Written evidence of agreements remains the most reliable proof of intention, says Laura Bednall

Nick Knapman discusses break notices—a topic likely to get property solicitors’ hearts racing

Paul Denholm offers advice on coping with a planning regime in flux

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll