header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Motor finance, markets, duties & separation of powers

219537
FirstRand, a hotly-anticipated Supreme Court judgment likely to arrive in July, could have far-reaching implications for the motor finance and wider financial services industries. In this week’s NLJ, Ceri Morgan, membership secretary of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, and knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills, explores the fiduciary duties involved, the key questions that will need to be answered by the Supreme Court, and the impact on the motor finance market
Morgan also looks at the case through the lens of constitutional law, namely its impact on separation of powers. Morgan writes that the case’s impact is ‘multifaceted. On one hand, it reinforces the judiciary’s authority to interpret and enforce legal standards, and for regulatory bodies to adapt and respond to judicial decisions. On the other hand, it highlights the need for clearer guidance by way of primary legislation or regulation, as it is not the role of the courts to formulate financial services’ regulatory policy’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll