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.
A NEWLY-FORMED environmental law group is trying to launch a court action against Railtrack under European rules on access to information.
London-based EarthRights is seeking legal aid for a client whose request for information on machinery noise levels was turned down. It hopes to use the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 to force Railtrack to release details about a contractor's machinery.
But Andrew Litherland, Railtrack principal litigation solicitor, says: "The regulations apply to public authorities or bodies that have public responsibilities for the environment. Railtrack doesn't have such responsibilities therefore the regulations do not apply."
The case raises wider issues about the accountability of former State bodies which are privatised, according to Toller Beattie solicitor Peter Scott.
Scott has launched a ground-breaking High Court action to extract information from South West Water Services
If newly-privatised public utilities are exempt from the rules there will be a discrepancy between information available in the UK and EU, says Scott.
The European directive recognises that publicly available information is one of the factors ensuring high environmental standards are enforced.
EarthRights solicitor John Dunkley says legal aid was refused and the group is seeking counsel's opinion, with a view to judicial review of the Legal Aid Board's decision.