header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 161, Issue 7479

01 September 2011
IN THIS ISSUE

Jon Holbrook assesses the ability of councils to bring possession proceedings against tenants involved in the recent riots

Ian Smith surveys the latest developments in the employment law pipeline

Ed Heaton examines a timely reminder to all about the dangers of waiving privilege

Andrew Arentsen calls for consistency in the application of Pt 36

How long do a landlord’s obligations & liabilities last under the tenancy deposit scheme, ask Greville Healey & Jamie Sutherland

When asking whether a judgment is more advantageous than a CPR Pt 36 offer, the court should take into account all aspects of the case, including emotional distress.

Shainul Kassam examines the impact of Jivraj on community mediation

Larner v NHS Leeds UKEAT/0088/11/CEA, [2011] All ER (D) 119 (Aug)

Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2011] EWHC 2008 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 279 (Jul)

Jet2.com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2011] EWHC 1529 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 06 (Jul)

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll