header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card

Issue: Vol 169, Issue 7846

28 June 2019
IN THIS ISSUE
NLJ's Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week's 28 June 2019 issue. 

None of us should be surprised by the recurring threat of outside competition, says Roderick Ramage

Is the Tate a public authority? Nicholas Dobson examines a recent ruling on nuisance & nosiness

The new Electronic Communications Code: James Tipler & Paul Letman share seven key takeaways 18 months on from implementation

Jennifer Haywood uncovers some valuable lessons on proprietary estoppel from recent Court of Appeal decisions

Charities should be aware of the risks as well as the benefits when partnering with non-charities, says Bethan Walsh

Mussell v Patience makes it clear that litigation costs principles differ from estate costs principles, as Chris Williams & Henrietta Mason explain

Divorce bill conclusive; lift news; case pipeline; CICB change; appealing odds

Elis Gomer discusses the rise of the DIY will: more trouble than it’s worth?

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

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