header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 167, Issue 7750

16 June 2017
IN THIS ISSUE
Norwich Pharmacal orders: still in vogue? Premium Content

Flexible & adaptable to many situations, the Norwich Pharmacal order remains as useful as ever, says Jonathan Cohen

16 June 2017 / Jonathan Cohen
Wronged parties & parental responsibilities Premium Content

When can a wronged party pursue a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary in tort? Alex Fox & Charlotte Hill provide an update

16 June 2017 / Alex Fox / Charlotte Hill
Insider dealing: leave no stone unturned Premium Content

Understanding their client’s investment strategy will help lawyers defend against insider dealing investigations, say Sarah Wallace & Samantha Leung

16 June 2017 / Samantha Leung
Divorce & money to separate

Divorce proceedings are to be ‘de-linked’ from financial proceedings such as applications for ancillary relief, as of 19 June.

16 June 2017
Child cruelty sentencing guidelines under review
16 June 2017
Income generators at the Bar
16 June 2017
Dublin holds sway as key legal hub

Pinsent Masons has become the latest law firm to open a Dublin office in the run-up to Brexit.

16 June 2017
SRA code change
16 June 2017
Judicial selection & the will of the people Premium Content

Charles Auld & Dr Kate Harrington reflect on what can be done to maintain confidence in judicial decisions

16 June 2017 / Charles Auld / Kate Harrington
Judicial selection & the will of the people
16 June 2017
Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll