“A former airline pilot has been jailed for life for killing his wife by deliberately crashing his car into a tree after disabling her airbag.”
The Independent, 26th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Police are looking at tweets sent following the conviction of Jeremy Forrest to see whether those who identified his victim have broken the law.”
The Guardian, 26th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
The Marketing and Administrative Assistant will support the Director of Clerking and the Director of Business Development in respect of the marketing activity of Chambers, and support our barrister-led practice groups. In addition, the postholder will be required to undertake occasional reception or other front of house duties.
Tasks will include:
• The planning, administration and execution of Chambers seminars and client social events.
• Co-ordinating Chambers practice groups and liaising with barrister team leaders
• Managing marketing and client databases.
• Researching existing and prospective clients and briefing senior staff accordingly ahead of meetings.
• Assisting with preparation and proofing of client newsletters and other mailshots.
• Assisting with submissions to legal directories.
• Undertaking front of house management on occasion.
A full job specification is available on request. The role is a permanent, part-time (1pm – 6pm) position. Salary will be in the region of £15,000 p.a. depending on experience. You will also receive an annual leave allowance of 20 days plus public holidays.
Applications should be made by way of CV and covering letter e-mailed to recruitment@2harecourt.com with a subject field marked “Marketing Role”.
The deadline for applications is 9am, Monday 15th July. Any applications received after this deadline will not be considered.
The Chambers Administrator will oversee the smooth management of the business aspects of our support function. Along with other duties, he / she will:
• Manage all financial matters including invoicing and payroll and any other matters which do not relate to the billing of fees.
• Be the first point of contact in Chambers for IT issues, escalating where necessary to external support companies.
• Manage services contracts and relationships with external suppliers.
• Manage all other facilities and property issues.
• Maintain staff personnel records.
A full job specification is available on request. The role is a permanent, full-time (9am – 6pm) position. Salary will be in the region of £40,000 – £45,000 p.a. depending on experience. You will also receive an annual leave allowance of 23 days plus public holidays.
Applications should be made by way of CV and covering letter e-mailed to recruitment@2harecourt.com with a subject field marked “Administrator Role”.
The deadline for applications is 9am, Monday 15th July. Any applications received after this deadline will not be considered.
“Peter Francis’s revelations show the need for a judicial inquiry – so the public can see how far our democracy has been eroded.”
The Guardian, 25th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“In Nigel Clack v Wrigleys Solicitors LLP [2013] EWHC 413 (Ch), Mr Nicholas Strauss QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) found for the Claimant client against his former Solicitors.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council [2013] UKSC 40; [2013] WLR (D) 250
“A highway authority had power under section 80 of the Highways Act 1980 to erect barriers so as to prevent vehicular access to a frontager’s forecourt, without paying compensation, in order to safeguard users of the highway and the fact that section 66(2) of the same Act conferred an alternative power to achieve the same object, which was subject to compensation, was immaterial.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The ERRA is an important piece of legislation, covering maters such as unfair dismissal, health and safety and copyright.”
One Inner Temple Lane, 24th June 2013
Source: www.1itl.com
Legal Aid Statistics in England and Wales (PDF)
Ministry of Justice, 25th June 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“Last year Arthur Moore and I ran a seminar in Chancery Lane on the (then) vexed question of to what extent Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights impacted upon private landlords’ possession claims.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The sentencing of seven men convicted of running a child sex abuse ring in Oxford is due to start today. The gang were found guilty of a range of sexual offences against girls as young as 12 last month.”
The Independent, 26th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“On 14 June 2013 in Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1643 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson handed down another important judgment on the application of the new costs management rules (in CPR r.3.15- r.3.18), albeit his decision relates to the Costs Management in Mercantile Courts and Technology and Construction Courts – Pilot Scheme (‘PD 51G’). In particular, Coulson J considered (i) the impact of an order for costs on the indemnity basis; (ii) what a party needs to do to seek approval of a revised costs budget; (iii) when a party should make an application for such approval; and (iv) what test the court applies on such an application. Coulson J’s findings are highlighted in bold below.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 25th June 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“A conman who posed as the brother of comedian Peter Kay while pretending to raise money for a boy with cancer has been jailed for 24 months.”
BBC News, 24th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“This is the tale of how a solicitor from Harrow ended up litigating about his off-street parking in the Supreme Court – and reached for Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, by way of a second string to his bow. Not his choice, as he had won in the Court of Appeal on other grounds. But his failure on the point reminds us that in the majority of cases A1P1 is a difficult argument to bring home.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A claimant’s chose in action represented by his claims in litigation is something which has a value, provided it is not certain or nearly certain to fail. Clients pay lawyers to take care of that chose in action by putting the claim forward in the proper way and by managing its progress in accordance with the rules and orders of the Court.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Border officials failed to pursue more than 3,000 leads identified on police databases when attempting to track down missing asylum seekers, an inspector has found.”
The Independent, 26th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Dr Hans-Christian Raabe lost his judicial review challenge to the revocation of his appointment as the GP member of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). His appointment was revoked less than a month after he had accepted an offer to join the ACMD, as a result of certain views about homosexuality expressed in a paper he had co-written in Canada some 6 years earlier.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Last week, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (no.1) [2013] UKSC 38. The Bank Mellat case involved financial restrictions imposed by HMT on the Bank under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), on the basis that it enabled funding for Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. The High Court and Court of Appeal had both adopted a closed material procedure (“CMP”) – i.e. a procedure in which the court sits in private, and hears evidence and/or submissions without one party either being present or seeing the material – in order to consider sensitive material adduced by HMT which could not be disclosed to the Bank. They had specific statutory authority to do so under the 2008 Act. The Supreme Court did not have such authority. The relevant questions were whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to adopt a CMP on appeal, in the absence of specific statutory provision; and if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in that particular case. The Supreme Court was faced with the difficulty of reconciling two strong but opposing interests. On the one hand, it was important that the Court should be able to see and consider any relevant material before the High Court and Court of Appeal. On the other, the Supreme Court itself in Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 had uncompromisingly set its face against any derogation from the open justice principle. The Supreme Court was divided; but the majority considered that the Court had implied authority to adopt a CMP under its powers conferred by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, where the lower courts had themselves used a CMP. Nevertheless, the Court was uncomfortable about doing so, and expressed that discomfort in strong terms.”
Panopticon, 25th June 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024