THIS ISSUE
It’s been 15 years since the Fraud Act 2006 took effect, and the scale and types of fraud have changed considerably.
The question of how to calculate holiday pay for workers on variable hours has been addressed by the Supreme Court decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel.
They’re massive, big money, headline-grabbing and share-price rocking—and possibly coming to a court near you! At least, that’s if the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) continues on its current path of greenlighting opt-out collective proceedings.
Recent incursions by the government into the rule of law and associated citizens’ freedoms have disturbing parallels in history, and should not be ignored, Geoffrey Bindman KC writes in this week’s NLJ.
With political divisions growing ever more pronounced, demonetisation is emerging as one of the principal weapons deployed to silence debate, argues David Locke
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s desire to breathe life into the collective proceedings regime is clear from its CPO approval rate & reluctance to strike out or summarily dismiss claims: Cameron Laing assesses the impact of its approach thus far
Sarah King looks at the various scenarios and conundrums facing employers of workers on variable hours
15 years on, can the Fraud Act 2006 keep up with the pace of change? Stewart Hey & Abigail Rushton weigh up its successes & shortcomings
Can anti-bribery & corruption compliance programmes assist corporates with environmental, social & governance risks? Liam Naidoo & Kevin O’Connor consider the evidence
Stephen Gold discovers how the law was coping with war—and how lawyers were coping with its ending—as he dips into the 1943 and 1945 archives
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig
Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire
EIP—Rob Barker
IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner
Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler
Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist
NEWS
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’
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
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
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
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
