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 City of London Corporation (COLC) has won its High Court bid to evict protestors from their camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral after Mr Justice Lindblom granted orders for possession and injunctions against protestors in December.
The corporation filed High Court proceedings against the protestors in November, after the Occupy London Stock Exchange (LSX) group failed to leave the camp. Negotiations between the parties fell through when they could not agree on terms to clear the camp, which the City claims is blocking public highways that it owns.
The group, which is campaigning against corporate greed, has been occupying the site since 15 October 2011 (15 November 2011).
John Cooper QC of 25 Bedford Row acted for the protestors, instructed by Karen Todner of Kaim Todner Solicitors.
Landmark Chambers’ David Forsdick advised the corporation, with the work being led in-house by City solicitor and comptroller Andrew Colvin.
It is understood that the COLC is seeking an additional possession order to prevent the group from shifting to the nearby area.
Commenting on today’s judgment, Kingsley Napley partner Caroline DeLaney said: “The removal of protesters has become costly, time-consuming and complex. The law is currently a patchwork of criminal and civil remedies which are applied inconsistently and reform of this area of law is long overdue.
“Today’s judgment will need to have taken account of the human right to protest balanced against the public right to use the highway. It is highly likely the losing party will appeal. Indeed if other protester situations are anything to go by we can expect this dispute to drag on for some time to come”