header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 165, Issue 7660

10 July 2015
IN THIS ISSUE

Dunnage v Randall and another [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2015] All ER (D) 49 (Jul)

A v The Trustees of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and others [2015] EWHC 1722 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 249 (Jun)

Jon Robins takes issue with the poshness test

Stephen Honey explains how video is taking centre stage in many law firm marketing campaigns

Professional indemnity insurance: Frank Maher casts an expert eye over what to expect

Patrick Allen explains how austerity economics, not the recession, will destroy our civil legal aid system

Osborne’s austerity experiment slated by leading legal aid proponent

Show
10
Results
Results
10
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