header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 157, Issue 7290

27 September 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

Could exceptionality return through the back door?
Eloise Power reports

The police have a duty to protect intimidated witnesses, says Seamus Burns

As ADR usage increases, Tony Allen explains the steps needed to ensure mediation confidentiality

PAYING FOR LONG TERM CARE
HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVATE CARE HOMES
PROTECTING VULNERABLE ADULTS

HMRC is keen to expand its powers to tackle debt, say Emily Springford and Vanessa Whitman

In brief

In brief

Shy Jackson considers the fine line between
non-disclosure and misrepresentation

Lord Scarman’s modest approach towards reverse burdens of proof was correct, says Richard Glover

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