header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 157, Issue 7283

26 July 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

Why was the creation of the Ministry of Justice railroaded through? asks Professor Michael Zander QC

R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1651, [2007] All ER (D) 159 (Jul)

The government should be promoting the law as a public service, says Geoffrey Vos QC

Togher v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office [2007] EWCA Civ 686, [2007] All ER (D) 73 (Jul)

It is time to rethink the delivery of legal services, says Professor Stephen Mayson

Is it too late to prevent a race towards low prices for minimum quality? asks Richard Miller

Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Euclidian (No 1) Ltd and others [2007] EWHC 1732 (Comm), [2007] All ER (D) 330 (Jul)

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