header-logo header-logo

profile-sm_7

Jonathan Pratt

ARTICLES BY THIS AUTHOR

In Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, [1954] 3 All ER 745 the dispute revolved around the potential sale of a bungalow, which Mr Ladd wished to buy from Mr Marshall.

Matthew McCahearty & Jonathan Pratt applaud the flexibility of Wrotham Park damages

Eleanor Morgan & Jonathan Pratt explore the doctrine of benefit & burden

Matt McCahearty & Jonathan Pratt recommend keeping Pt 36 offers under review

Jonathan Pratt provides a statistical analysis of recent trends in City litigation

Damages or injunctions? Willie Manners & Jonathan Pratt report

In billing disputes is the client always right? asks Jonathan Pratt

A cross undertaking in damages can prove costly, says Jonathan Pratt

Show
8
Results
Results
8
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll