MAZUR MATTERS 40: “A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF REGULATORY FAILURE”: CHAIR OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CONSUMER PANEL PULLS NO PUNCHES…
The chair of the Legal Services Panel has given his strong views about the regulatory failures that the Mazur judgment shows. With descriptions of “a study of regulatory incoherence”; “legal fiction”; “false assurance” and ” the fragmented, incoherent framework that…
PART 35 QUESTIONS AND AGENDAS FOR EXPERT MEETINGS – A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS AND EXPERTS: WEBINAR 3rd DECEMBER 2025
The conduct of experts, and those who instruct them, has featured widely on this blog this year. This webinar looks at two specific issues in relation to expert evidence (i) questions to experts; (ii) the drafting of agendas for expert…
“SECOND APPEALS” FROM THE CIRCUIT JUDGE: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR APPEAL AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA APPLIED?
This case reveals a potential trap that would be appellants can fall into when attempting to appeal a decision of a Circuit Judge when that judge heard an appeal from a District Judge. Both the venue for the appeal and…
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, CONTINUING BREACHES AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL
This is a judgment which anyone with responsibility for running a legal department, or in a position where “the buck stops here” should read. The Court of Appeal judgment is clear, and damning, in relation to the conduct involved, albeit…
AIRLINE’S ATTEMPT TO “CHALLENGE JURISDICTION” FAILS TO TAKE OFF: “I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFENDANT HAS DEFENDED THIS ACTION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS”
There are some interesting applications where defendants attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court using CPR 11. This case is one of the most intriguing I have seen. The defendant’s argument here relied on the submission that notification of…
You must be logged in to post a comment.