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.
Appeal contentions: First and second defendants' appeal from order of Mr Justice Smith, QBD, 3 March 1997, giving judgment for plaintiff against the defendant with damages to be assessed. Plaintiff's claim against third defendant in contribution proceedings against the first and second defendant with damages to be assessed, First and second defendants contribution proceedings against defendant third dismissed.
Incident: Accident involved a collision between a Daf rigid goods vehicle owned by third defendant and driven by the defendants' agent, Christopher Talbot, and a heavy goods vehicle owned by the second defendant and driven by the first defendant in the course of employment with second defendant. As a result of the collision third defendant's Daf crossed the road and went into the path of the plaintiff's vehicle. A collision occurred between the Daf and the plaintiff's vehicle. Talbot was killed and the plaintiff was seriously injured. The judge found that the accident was caused by second defendant moving without warning from the near side to the middle lane. The plaintiff took no part in the trial, it being conceded that he must succeed against all three defendants. Appellants contend that proper analysis of the factual evidence shows that the case put forward by first and second defendant was, on balance, correct and that firm factual evidence did not support third defendant's case