Freshfields defeats Competition Commission

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • Freshfields

    Can Freshfields ever do anything wrong? They seem to be walking on water.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • OMG

    Freshfields victory in a case: SHOCKER! "Walking on water"???

    The inane nature of some of the comments posted on this site astounds me. Freshfields win stuff all the time. Who is posting this cr@p?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Poor reading skills

    M needs to read the comment more carefully. It is precisely because Freshfields are winning so many cases, getting on panels and not firing people like its peers , show that it is 'walking on water'. it appears to be the only Magic Circle Firm to be untouched by the maelstrom. Congratulations
    M. , you have joined the list of 'inane' commenters.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Poor comprehension skills

    No, my love, perhaps you need to work on understanding nuance and sarcasm. My point is that there is no disproportionate "winning" by FF. It is winning things, as it ought to, but certainly not demonstrably more than it's competitors (and neither do I think any of those are pulling away from the pack). It wins things all the time, which is why it is a great firm. The "walking on water" comment just sounds silly. The comment, along with one posted on the Wolsley rights issue article, appear to be the work of some kind of "marketing genius" FF fanboy. "Freshfields Wins Case" does not signify any paradigm shift, and a quick scan of the Lawyer confirms that FF has no particular deluge of work that outstrips its competitors.

    Granted, not laying off associates is good work by the Fleet St Elite, but let's see how long that lasts. And let's not forget the groaning from the FF lawyers who didn't appreciate the pay freeze/decrease -"untouched by the maelstrom" it certainly is not. So, in sum, and in case you still don't quite understand: the comment was to my mind (in demonstrating a over-awed "surprise" at FF's recent "success") inane.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sarcasm the lowest form of wit

    M., my unbeloved, not everyone who praises a firm is part of the PR machine. Your beef should be with the legal press.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You're right.

    Maybe you just work there, or are about to start a training contract with them. That would explain the "starry-eyed" comments...

    "Unbeloved" is a little harsh though. *sob

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Victory? for society?

    I'm surprised that the discussion is so petty, or even about Freshfields. Are you not more concerned about the march of Tescos and the effect on our high streets and growth of the habit of shopping by car?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A narrow 'victory'

    Anyone who practises planning law could have seen this 'victory' coming. If it is a victory for anything at all, it is one for common sense.

    Local planning authorities are required by law to consider planning applications on planning grounds. The only policies they are required to apply are those in their own development plans and in guidance laid down by (in England) the Department of Communities and Local Goverment. The judgment confirms that local planning authorities would act ultra vires if they took account of non-planning considerations, even at the purported direction of another executive body.

    Sorry to be so boring while the rest of you are having so much fun.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (8)