Further to our update on possession claims earlier this week, as of yesterday there is now a wealth of guidance online ahead of possession claims resuming in the courts from Monday (21 September). Housing lawyers have a lot of reading to do before Monday.
The Master of the Rolls’ working party has finalised its guidance document so that the legal system, and in particular the courts, can manage housing possession cases once the stay on proceedings is lifted on 20 September.
The case involved an appeal by a father in relation to an order made in private law proceedings restricting his contact to indirect only and restricting his exercise of parental responsibility.
A deputy High Court judge’s refusal to set aside a return order made under the 1980 Hague Convention was successfully appealed.
Clare Cullen considers the case of R (on the application of Tiemo) v Lambeth London Borough Council  EWHC 1193 (Admin) where the High Court adjourned a case considering the suitability of interim accommodation where further information was required
Appeal by a father in which the court of appeal considered a local authority’s powers in relation to changing the nationality of children in care
Today, in a last minute announcement before the stay on possession claims was due to be lifted on 23 August 2020, it was explained that the Lord Chancellor had written to Sir Terence Etherton MR to explain that: “he [the Lord Chancellor] thinks it expedient for the Civil Procedure Rules to include provision that would extend the stay imposed by rule 55.29 for a period of four weeks, to 20 September”.
The case concerned an appeal by a local authority against the discharging of care orders in respect of two girls, aged 9 and 7. The orders were made in January 2020 in the context of physical abuse allegations against a child of their mother’s then-partner.
Appeal by father (F) against order made under inherent jurisdiction that a child (A) aged 13 and a British National, who has been living in Algeria for just over 12 years, should be brought to England so that “an assessment can be made in a place of safety as to her best interests and living arrangements”.
A new Practice Direction (PD 55C) is to come into force on 23 August 2020. The Practice Direction is made under r.55.A1 and is said to be a “temporary modification” of Part 55, for an “interim period” commencing on 23 August 2020 and ending on 28 March 2021.
This case raises 3 important points about interpreting and applying sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in the context of alcohol addiction.
There is to be an amendment to the CPR to set out how possession cases (and proceedings for enforcement by writ or warrant of possession) are to proceed when they resume. Also 10 temporary “Nightingale Courts” will be opened to start to alleviate the pressure on full-time courts.
Cobb J allowed an appeal against an order of HHJ Hughes QC refusing to discharge a non-molestation order granted in 2016, and her substitution of an order that was to ‘continue indefinitely’.
A decision by the High Court to make a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) to cover future costs in ongoing child arrangement order proceedings, allowing the mother’s appeal against a decision of HHJ Tolson QC.
In a judgment handed down today in the case of R (JP) v NHS Croydon Clinical Commissioning Group & the London Borough of Croydon  EWHC 1470 (Admin), Mostyn, J described a claim that the local authority could provide tracheostomy care for a child pursuant to the general power of competence in s. 1 of the Localism Act 2011 as ‘misconceived’.
This judgment should go some way to ensuring that landlords do comply with requirements which, in turn, will hopefully lead to standards improving in the private sector in Wales.
The current pandemic poses particular problems to care home managers and local authorities who make such placements. It raises questions about their legal obligations and the rights of care home residents in the face of this health crisis.
The court determined MC’s best interests would be served by harvesting her peripheral blood stem cells for donation to her mother who has chronic leukaemia.
The recent High Court appeal in the case of Archibald v Alexander is a useful reminder that the apparent absence of detriment may not be fatal to the assertion of a constructive trust in respect of jointly owned property. It is also a reminder that a constructive trust may arise outside the confines of the “common intention constructive trust”.
In a somewhat welcome judgment for landlords, the Court of Appeal has held, by a majority, that a section 21 notice can be served so long as the relevant gas safety record has been given to the tenant before service.
Last week’s Court of Appeal judgment in A Local Authority v JB, changes the way in which lawyers, social care professionals and others should approach mental capacity concerning sexual relations.
Clare Cullen considers R (on the application of Mitchell) v London Borough of Islington. For local authorities, the case shows the importance of ensuring proper notification is given under s.188(1ZA) to bring the s.188 duty to an end in circumstances where the relief duty is owed but an applicant is found not to have a priority need. For those representing homeless applicants, it demonstrates the importance of checking whether proper notification has been given under s.188(1ZA) to end the s.188 duty.
On appeal from the High Court of Justice Family Division, McCombe, King, and Peter Jackson LJJ consider the procedural route when the vaccination of a child in care is disputed.
Today is the start of the registration period for funding to remove non-ACM (Aluminium Composite Material) cladding on buildings. Affected building owners and registered social housing providers have until 31 July to register for the scheme.
In the second hearing in the case of Boston Trust Company Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd & Ors, the judge gave the claimants conditional permission to bring multiple derivative proceedings dependent upon them entered as shareholders on the company members’ register by rectification proceedings or otherwise.
Landlords should be aware that from Monday (1 June) the Tenants Fees Act applies to tenancies and licences whenever they were granted.
Application by a father for a declaration of non-paternity and latterly, for a declaration that BT, the putative father, was the father of AS and BS pursuant to section s 55A of the Family Law Act 1986.
Judgment was handed down this afternoon in the important case of Arkin v Marshall. As well as endorsing PD 51Z, it provided clarity to lawyers as to what can and cannot be done during a stay generally.
Timothy Carlisle has recently been successful with the other defendants in stalling the claimants who brought a multiple derivative claim. Anyone contemplating such a claim should be aware that where the minority shareholding is by way of a parent company, the claimants must have legal ownership in the shares as recorded in the company’s Register of Members.
What is best practice for local authorities delivering Care Act 2014 services during the COVID-19 pandemic?The Coronavirus Act (“CVA 2020”) has fundamentally altered local authorities’ duties under the Care Act 2014 (“CA 2014”). However, a day after the changes came into effect the government released statutory guidance, which has significantly tempered the changes imposed by the CVA 2020.
Unlike the Care Act 2014, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (“MCA 2005”) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (“DoLS”) have not been altered by the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“CVA 2020”). Therefore the challenges for practitioners concern the practicalities of how the existing regime applies during the COVID-19 crisis, rather than new legislative changes.
Parents’ application for leave to oppose adoption refused. The court considered that previous decisions relating to the family were highly relevant to the decision.
The main provisions of the Coronavirus Act 202 were brought into force without s. 15 and Schedule 12 which concern local authority care and support. Those were brought into force on 31 March 2020. One month on, some common themes are emerging.
If you would like to adjourn a trial on medical grounds, Morgan & Another v Egan helpfully summarises the key authorities and approach to such an application
Application by P’s daughter for declaration following care home moratorium on family visits in the light of COVID-19. Moratorium upheld despite human rights implications.
The Court of Appeal has held that the Right to Rent scheme is compatible with Article 14 (read with Article 8) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This means it is likely that the Right to Rent scheme will continue for private landlords in its current form.
Sarah Salmon examines the recent decision in McMahon v Watford Borough Council; Kiefer v Hertsmere Borough Council  EWCA Civ 497. The Court of Appeal was critical of the risk of using a highly technical PSED arguments in homelessness appeals to attempt to quash “otherwise unimpeachable vulnerability assessment[s]”.
The new Practice Direction 51Z to the Civil Procedure Rules has been amended to deal, to a certain extent, with case management, trespassers and interim possession orders. Parties can now agree case management directions in possession claims and apply for those directions to be made during the stay period.
Francis Hoar argues the lockdown regulations amount to an unprecedented breach of rights and freedoms and are disproportionate and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. These views are those of the author alone and not those of Field Court Chambers.
Adrian Davis examines the recent decision in James v Hertsmere Borough Council  EWCA Civ 489, in which the Court of Appeal ruled upon the scope of the county court’s jurisdiction when hearing a statutory homelessness appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
The High Court has granted an interim injunction against a hospital patient, requiring her to give up possession of a hospital bedroom. In effect, the NHS Trust was granted possession by the “back door”, in a way which avoided the intended effect of CPR 51Z PD.
Care providers and supervisory bodies responsible for DoLS requests need to be aware that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards have not been changed by the Coronavirus Act 2020. They continue to apply in full.
Although housing possession cases have to a large degree drawn to a standstill. Some types of housing hearings are still taking place during this period.
Amid the current public health crisis, the Coronavirus Act 2020 has relaxed Care Act requirements for local authorities to assess or meet social care needs. But how should local authorities approach this “easement” relating to meeting needs?
All lawyers using the Civil Courts in England & Wales ought to be aware of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules that take effect next week. In particular, amendments to CPR 22 revise the form of Statements of Truth.
Sarah Salmon represented the successful local authority in a High Court case involving a litigant in person, a section 204 Housing Act appeal and case management during the Coronavirus crisis.
While it may be a daunting prospect to ensure family justice in the time of a global pandemic, directions hearings in private children and domestic abuse cases seem well-suited to remote hearings.
All current housing possession claims are suspended from today (27 March 2020) for 3 months. However it important to note that this is simply a suspension for 3 months
The Coronavirus Bill currently going through the UK parliament has provisions relating to business tenancies in England and Wales to protect against forfeiture etc.
As part of the UK government’s preparedness for coronavirus and the economic uncertainty it has caused, legislation is being introduced to protect tenants from eviction. All landlords should be aware that from the day after the act is passed until 30 September 2020, you will need to comply with amended notice periods for almost all residential tenancies.
How should local authorities deal with the setting aside of their duties to provide care and support to adults with eligible needs during the Coronavirus crisis? The UK government’s emergency Coronavirus legislation, which takes effect shortly, temporarily suspends local authorities’ duties under the Care Act 2014.
The law and practice related to costs and funding in family proceedings continue to develop rapidly. Family lawyers may be unaware and surprised at some of the significant changes.
Joshua Swirsky assesses the case of Pease v Carter  EWCA Civ 175 in which the Court of Appeal further limited the scope for tenants running defences based on errors in notices.
Many boundary disputes depend on factual findings made regarding historical documents, which often came into existence for other purposes. Although appeals on questions of fact that have been determined by a trial judge are nowadays rare, and tend to be discouraged by the appellate courts, Boas v Aventure shows how the court is likely to approach such a boundary dispute appeal.
Alexander Campbell examines the law and requirements around hung parliaments in the UK, recalling the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition of 2010, in a Q&A with LexisNexis.
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal, upholding an order of the Upper Tribunal that the Appellant’s Housing Benefit should be calculated without deduction of the “bedroom tax”.
Must a claimant of rectification for common mistake show that the parties actually (subjectively) shared the same mistaken belief as to the meaning of the contract? Yes, said the Court of Appeal in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd  EWCA Civ 1361.
A Court of Appeal judgment by Moylan LJ setting aside a High Court decision made under the inherent jurisdiction, which had ordered the return to Russia of two children.
Two recent cases, Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation) and In Re H (A Child) (Parental Alienation), have once again highlighted the need for lawyers, parents and courts to be live to the possibility of parental alienation.
A father unsuccessfully appealed a determination of fact made in private law children proceedings that he had perpetrated a rape upon the mother.
Reviewing a decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 has become more onerous for local authorities. They now need to re-evaluate their available housing at the date of review to see if properties within or closer to their district are available as well as the allocation of such properties. Following the case of London Borough of Waltham Forest v Saleh  EWHC CIV 1944, this has to be factored into a suitability assessment.
Genevieve Screeche-Powell evaluates aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Simawi v The London Borough of Haringey  EWCA Civ 1770.
An appeal by a great-aunt against care and placement orders made in May 2019 concerning a two year old boy. Appeal allowed.
TR’s parents and her doctors did not agree on whether treatment should continue or whether it should be withdrawn, resulting in her death.
Adrian Davis examines the High Court’s decision in Bibi Emambee v The London Borough of Islington  EWHC 2835 (QB), in which Mr Justice Stewart dismissed Ms Emambee’s appeal against the county court judge’s refusal to extend time for bringing a homelessness appeal under section 204(2A) of the Housing Act 1996.
It was in the interests of AB to be fitted with an intrauterine contraceptive device when she underwent a caesarean section with a spinal anaesthetic.
The case concerned an appeal against a committal of the appellant mother who had failed to comply with orders to return the parties’ children to Mexico.
Application by Lincolnshire County Council to determine whether a 51-year-old-man had capacity with regards to his contact with sex workers.
The case concerned an application by a Local Authority (LA) for an injunction under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent KR from living together with his wife ST.
Cobb J concluded proceedings and determined whether it had been right to use the inherent jurisdiction to make interim injunctive-type orders in respect to a capacitous but apparently vulnerable adult.
The claimant’s principal argument was that the policy was unlawful because the council had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 Equality Act 2010. This case shows that if local authorities carry out (and record) comprehensive equalities assessments of their policies, it is likely to be very difficult for claimants to successfully argue a failure to comply with the public sector equality duty.
Jonathan Pennington Legh discusses the Court of Appeal judgment in Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council  EWCA Civ 1405 which was handed down on 2 August 2019.
The court determined a child (M) to be habitually resident in England and Wales and that the English court had jurisdiction regarding matters pertaining to parental responsibility.
Jared Norman considers the case of Livewest Homes Limited v Bamber  EWCA Civ 1174. Section 21 has become a minefield for landlords who let properties under assured shorthold tenancies. The Livewest case is of particular relevance to social landlords who have entered into fixed term tenancies of more than two years and/or where they are operating a break clause.
Social landlords subject to the public sector equality act duty can take some comfort in the fact that the Court of Appeal has dismissed a second appeal against a possession order notwithstanding a breach of the PSED.
Applications for authorisation of care plans, inter alia, for deprivation of liberty [‘DoL’] of restricted patients under ‘Hospital Orders’.
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Yavuz Yildiz v London Borough of Hackney on 24 July 2019, a case which examined the interaction between section 83(1) and Ground 15A of the Housing Act 1985.
Urgent application by the treating Trust to permit treatment in respect a 16-year old girl, B, refusing treatment.
Separation is a traumatic time for most people. On top of the upheaval, you’re unlikely to want to pay tax when you divide up the assets if you don’t have to.
Judgment in Queen’s Bench Division providing international family lawyers with a meticulous overview on establishing forum.
Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 provides that local authorities are under a full duty to secure accommodation to a person found homeless, if certain conditions are satisfied, one of which is that they are not satisfied that she “became homeless intentionally”.
A mother’s unsuccessful appeal against an order for the summary return of a child to Israel.
District Judge Moore sitting at the Magistrates Court in Bexley handed down judgment in Williams v London & Quadrant Housing Trust. There were some lessons in her judgment regarding the use of experts in Environmental Protection Act 1990 prosecutions.
A request by the Slovakian Central Authority (SCA) to transfer proceedings to the Slovakian courts pursuant to Article 15 of Brussels II Revised Regulation (BIIR) was refused by His Honour Judge Dancey sitting as a section 9 judge.
Local authority and social landlords have seen an increase in recent years in private prosecutions brought against them under section 82, Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“1990 Act”).
In Salix Homes v Mantato  EWCA Civ 445 the Court of Appeal considered whether cause of action estoppel prevents a landlord obtaining a possession order on rent arrears grounds where there is an existing undischarged order for possession on the basis of earlier arrears, and for payment of those arrears.
Mostyn J refused an application by a husband to revoke a disclosure order made during financial remedy proceedings.
Jonathan Pennington Legh discusses the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) case of London Borough of Southwark v Baharier.
Is it possible to be in adverse possession of land of which you are the registered proprietor ? Yes, says the Court of Appeal in Rashid v Nasrullah.
The criminal offence of assisting or encouraging suicide has recently attracted press coverage and political discussion. That attention focuses on the risks of prosecution and imprisonment, but for many families the financial consequences will be of equal or greater importance.
The High Court has dismissed a claim for damages in respect of accommodation provided under section 17, Children Act 1989 which was alleged to be in breach of article 8. Emma Godfrey of Field Court Chambers appeared for the respondent authority.
Knowles J refused seven applications by a father for permission to appeal and made an extended civil restraint order.
Judgment of Hayden J in the Court of Protection in a case in which His Lordship recognises the need for public debate and further consideration as to “whether the MCA, by collateral declarations, is apt to limit the autonomy of individuals in spheres where they are capacitous”.
Genevieve Screeche-Powell considers the guidance given by Mr. Justice Cobb on the difficult and sensitive question of the observance of Islamic religious practice for an adult lacking capacity in the case of Re IH (Observance of Muslim Practice)  EWCOP 9.
Court of Appeal judgment overturning a judgment which had found that a wife had acquired a domicile of choice in England.
Alistair Cantor considers Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council  EWCA Civ, a case with important implications for many local authorities.
Unsuccessful appeal to the High Court by a mother against a decision which transferred the residence of C to her father.
Joshua Swirsky considers The Public Guardian’s Severance Applications  EWCOP 10 in which District Judge Eldergill gave guidance following 17 applications by the Public Guardian for LPAs to be severed.
Alistair Cantor considers a recent decision of the Administrative Court in R (on the application of JF) v London Borough of Merton  EWHC 1519 concerning the lawfulness of a Care Act assessment and associated decisions made by the local authority in respect of the termination of an existing placement and the suitability of a proposed new placement.
Jonathan Cowen considers the decision of the Administrative Court in R(Liverpool City Council and others) v The Secretary of State for Health  EWHC 986 (Admin) in which four local authorities challenged the sufficiency of funding for the deprivation of liberty regime.
If the young person wishes to challenge the age assessment he has to then obtain legal advice and, if appropriate, see an interim injunction. Sometimes the interim relief is applied for after the young person has been dispersed.
The 2 applicants in these cases that were heard together were from Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively. There was nothing remarkable about the facts of either case. Both raised factual issues that are to be tried by the Upper Tribunal, however, Popplewell J ordered that a ‘rolled up’ hearing to consider the challenge to LBC’s practice.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths considers the decision of the Administrative Court in R (S) v Croydon LBC  EWHC 265 and the duty on local authorities to accommodate a young person pending the determination of an age assessment.
Jonathan Pennington Legh looks at the problems that generally arise for the home owner in relation to mortgages and leases.
Alistair Cantor reviews the Supreme Court’s decision on the appropriate rate of deductions from pay for striking workers. The ruling is likely to have implications for most professionals on annual contracts paid monthly.
On 26 January 2017, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in London Borough of Hackney v Williams and anor  EWCA Civ 26, departing from a long chain of Family Court judgments highlighting the necessity for local authorities to obtain the informed consent of parents prior to accommodating children under section 20.
In January 2017, the High Court handed down judgment in AP (by his litigation friend, BA) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council  EWHC 65 (QB), concerning the preliminary issue of limitation in Human Rights Act claims.
Sarah Salmon considers the Supreme Court judgment in N v A Clinical Commissioning Group and others  UKSC 22;  2 WLR 1011, a case described from the outset to be about the “jurisdiction” of the Court of Protection. It was, in fact, as Lady Hale noted, unfortunate that the case had been put this way: it was about the role of the Court of Protection and the approach that should be taken in light of its limited powers.
Emma Godfrey looks at Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea  UKSC 36 where the Supreme Court has revisited the question of whether decisions by local housing authorities as to the duty owed under Part VII Housing Act 1996 amount to the “determination of a civil right” which engages the right to a hearing before an impartial and independent tribunal under art 6 ECHR.
In attempting to purchase a vacant unencumbered property, without itself relying on the funds of a mortagee lender, Dreamvar fell victim to identity fraud.
M, the daughter of N, a 68-year-old female, brought proceedings under s15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for a declaration that it was not in N’s best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining clinically assisted nutrition and hydration via an endoscopic tube.
The Court of Appeal has held that, as a matter of statutory construction, a notice of proceedings served in relation to an introductory tenancy under s.128, Housing Act 1996 can satisfy the necessary requirements even if the information is contained in more than one document. Whether the requirements are satisfied, however, will be a question of objective fact in every case.
Sarah Salmon looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nottingham City Council v (1) Parr and (2) Trevor Parr Associates Ltd  EWCA Civ 188 which considers whether or not licence conditions imposed under the HMO regime in the Housing Act 2004 could restrict the type of occupier who could live in the accommodation.
Sarah Salmon looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Turley v (1) Wandsworth LBC and (2) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which was another challenge to the succession regime under the Housing Act 1985 albeit following amendments made by the Localism Act 2011 (which did not apply to this case) and future amendments, should they be brought into force, under the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Grace Cheng looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrod and Others v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and Others, where the Court gives helpful guidance on the appropriate focus for tribunals considering indirect discrimination claims.
Alistair Cantor looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Georgina O’Brien v Bolton St Catherine’s Academy on the relationship between the tests of disproportionality under s15 EqA and that of unreasonableness under s98(4) ERA.
Nikolas Clarke considers the CJEU’s controversial decision in Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV on the lawfulness of banning staff from wearing religious dress.
Lauren Suding summarises the EAT’s decision in Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Baker.
Jonathan Cowen summarises the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Secretary of State for Justice v Staffordshire County Council and others  EWCA Civ 1317
Lauren Suding explains the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith and examines implications for the gig economy.
Francis Hoar summarises the principles in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Kuznetsov v. Royal Bank of Scotland, where the Court gave guidance on amendments to add whistleblowing claims, the EAT approach to making case management orders without remission, and the need for promptness in applying for cost protection orders.
Christine Cooper and Eirwen Pierrot represented the Claimants in this important case.
The European Court of Human Rights’ once again considers the position of those who are detained against their wishes as a result of mental illness.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths considers whether the High Court has jurisdiction to attach a power of arrest to a non-molestation injunction, granted under its inherent jurisdiction, for the benefit of a vulnerable adult.
Francis Wilkinson recently led Lauren Suding in public law children proceedings with an international element, in which interim Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPO) had previously been made in respect of the children’s older siblings. A referral was made to the local authority after the police were contacted by the older siblings in relation to the forced marriages.
Joshua Swirsky appeared for the London Borough of Croydon in an important case in the Upper Tribunal which gives general guidance on the use of evidence of dental development in the assessment of age.
The principal issue facing the Court of Appeal in Finance and Business Training v HMRC was whether EU law meant that a provider of university courses was entitled to the VAT education exemption in the same way as a university, even if not so entitled under UK VAT law.
Minority interest – perhaps – but according to HHJ Dight, sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal in Murdoch v Amesbury  UKUT 3 (TCC), the answer in “No.”
No, said the Supreme Court in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd  UKSC 72.
Miles Croally recently participated in Private Client Adviser’s ‘Best of Intentions’ roundtable discussing elements of best practice in estates administration and probate.
Matthew Stott, considers the implications of the decisions in Re A, B, C, D and E (Children) where the local authority professionals involved were named by the court.
Costs in Family Proceedings explains the rules and procedure relating to costs and funding in all family proceedings, co authored by Francis Wilkinson and Dr. Sara Hunton.
Matthew Stott writes for Jordan’s Family Law on the importance of potentially being aware of sock line hyperpigmentation (SLHP) as it mimics child abuse.
Michael Reason discusses the importance of tradition in the rule of law and how physical buildings support that tradition.
Christopher Stirling writes for the Private Client Adviser on how to secure a share in a property held under one name
Christine Cooper writes for the Private Client Advisor on care fees
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths and pupil barrister Eirwen Pierrot write for Local Government Lawyer
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths writes for Private Client Adviser
Bill Bowring writes for Who’s Who Legal exploring the nature of corporate responsibility in Russia and the country’s status in the global economic order.
Francis Wilkinson writes for Family Law Week asking whether an application to set aside is permissible where there has been a change of circumstances which undermines the basis of a consent order