header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 167, Issue 7760

08 September 2017
IN THIS ISSUE

Position papers restate mantra that CJEU will have no direct jurisdiction post Brexit

Unfair should not mean unlawful, says Tessa Fry

Civil servants are seeking to wrestle political hubris & legal reality, says David Greene

Ian Smith shares his reflections on a frenetic summer of activity & intrigue

Patricia Londono discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd

Nicholas Dobson charts the substantial litigation necessary to maintain the integrity of the 11-plus

If we value the rule of law, we must not take our judges for granted, says Khawar Qureshi QC

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