header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE

Issue: Vol 161, Issue 7467

26 May 2011
IN THIS ISSUE

Stephen Hockman QC Courting controversy: Parliament & the judiciary wrangle over privacy

Dominic Regan explains why Jackson is unstoppable

When does an employee owe fiduciary duties, asks Felicia Epstein

Jonathan Herring examines the courts’ approach to conflict in two children custody cases

Is the personal injury marketplace at odds with solicitor obligations? John Spencer investigates

David Cowan suggests that danger is looming in the social housing battleground of shared ownership

Jonathan Cohen provides an update on commercial name disputes

Claire Sanders examines the principles of freezing orders in matrimonial proceedings as highlighted by ND v KP

David Phillips & Emily Lew discuss the merits & limitations of the EU Mediation Directive

Martin Burns argues that greater promotion is the key to the future of mediation

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll