header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 162, Issue 7515

23 May 2012
IN THIS ISSUE

Roger Smith rounds up recent human rights developments

How can we protect victims of unfair commercial practices, ask David Hertzell & Amy Smith

European Directives strike again Spencer Keen & Monika Sobiecki investigate

Jonathan Herring examines the approach to the dissolution of gay marriage

Simon Love assesses the proposed new role for SRA Compensation Fund

Paul Denholm questions the application of LA 2011 to planning breaches

Hayley Tam puts into perspective the contaminated land regime amendments

Nine lives too many & a concurrence conundrum for George

Singla v Stockler and another [2012] EWHC 1176 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 100 (May)
Chancery Division, Briggs J, 10 May 2012

Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKSC 18, [2012] All ER (D) 124 (May)

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll