The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The site of Allen & Overys (A&O) new Spitalfields headquarters could face a second judicial review in one of the most protracted planning disputes the City has ever seen
Planning firm Richard Buxton and Richard Harwood of 39 Essex Street have presented a series of challenges to the 2002 planning consents for the 15-floor office building. A pre-action letter was sent to Tower Hamlets Council last week on behalf of Spitalfields Market Under Threat (Smut), which has made a £750 down payment for preliminary legal work. The council has 14 days to respond. Proceedings would then have to be brought by 19 February. Also involved are Norton Rose for the Spitalfields Development Group, Nabarro Nathanson for Hammerson, Clifford Chance for the City of London Corporation and Linklaters for A&O. Nabarro Nathanson partner Martin Evans, for Hammerson, said: Weve looked at it [the letter]. Were not surprised its been submitted, but the points are frivolous, inaccurate and of no consequence. In 2000 a legally aided judicial review quashed amended plans which tried to turn the 1997 Liffe scheme into an office development. The developers have since had to promote a fresh planning application with an environmental impact assessment. Smut now alleges that the council did not properly publicise the revised environmental statement and further material on the scheme, as required by 1999 regulations, and understated figures on the increase of floorspace in the 2002 scheme. It also alleges breaches of planning and listed building consent. Consent for the demolition of the 1928 building, which has started, hinged on acceptable replacement buildings being provided. However, the support building previously proposed for that part of the site has not been retained in the A&O scheme. The contract was therefore a sham as there was no intention to erect the support building, the letter states. Smut campaigner Jil Cove said: Were hoping that this actually helps the Corporation of London and the developers realise how serious we are about protecting the whole of Spitalfields Market. We want the market to act as a buffer between us and the City. Were saying, Go and build your big buildings somewhere else. We have no argument with A&O. They have been smoothed and sweetened into taking the letting. An A&O spokesman said: Were very relaxed that any judicial review application must be brought by 19 February, and were looking forward to seeing what the next few weeks bring.