header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 175, Issue 8104

14 February 2025
IN THIS ISSUE
Is our criminal appeals system fit for purpose? Jon Robins, NLJ columnist, writes that he recently attended an ‘astonishing press conference’ on the Lucy Letby case, in which the international panel of medical experts, working pro bono, ‘did not equivocate.
Welcome to the brave new world of neuropolitics! In this week’s NLJ, Harry Lambert, Outer Temple Chambers, continues his fascinating series on the fast-emerging area of neurorights with a look at free will, our sense of self, individual agency and freedom of thought.
In a small road accident claim, do we really need to know the full details of the claimant’s childhood medical history? ‘In modest personal injury claims, routine, unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of the entirety of claimants’ medical records is not acceptable,’ Charles Davey, a barrister with The Barrister Group, writes in this week’s NLJ.
Three cases concerning contributory action and re-engagement, injury to feelings and blacklisted airline pilots come under scrutiny in this week’s NLJ. Ian Smith, barrister, emeritus professor of employment law at the Norwich Law School, UEA, and author of NLJ’s monthly employment law brief, comments that cases on re-engagement, the first in the trio, are ‘relatively rare’. This case ‘shows how carefully an employment tribunal must construe exactly what is expected of it when considering re-engagement’.
From moths in the attic to the right to manage, 2024 provided a plethora of landmark real estate litigation cases. In this week’s NLJ, Ben Hatton, director of property litigation, Jordan Gulwell, lawyer, and Natasha Vij, trainee solicitor, at Clifford Chance, survey the stand-out cases and set out some lessons to learn from each.
Former district judge Stephen Gold highlights some unplanned side-effects of proposed legislation to include the names of claimants in the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines, in this week’s NLJ.
What happened in family law in the last quarter of 2024? A lot, as demonstrated by Ellie Hampson-Jones, senior associate, and Carla Ditz, knowledge development lawyer at Stewarts, authors of NLJ’s family law brief.
Is our criminal appeals system any more prepared to recognise an injustice than it was back in the ‘bad old days’? Jon Robins reports
Ellie Hampson-Jones & Carla Ditz analyse the outcomes of the first Family Court Annual Report, as well as other crucial developments in the field
Ben Hatton, Jordan Gulwell & Natasha Vij explore 2024’s stand-out cases in real estate litigation: what can we learn for the coming year?
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