The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report is the only ranking of international law firms by litigation and arbitration revenue and is essential reading for anyone seeking to benchmark their litigation and dispute resolution practices...
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.
TNT Express (UK) v Richmond on Thames London Borough Council (1995).
(DC (McCowan LJ and Waller J) 14/6/95).
Summary: Nature of goods vehicle operator's obligations under a Goods Vehicles Access Permit with regard to use of restricted roads.
Carrier's appeal against convictions for offences committed contrary to s.8 (1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for failing to minimise its vehicles' use of restricted roads in breach of conditions attached to permits issued under the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985/345. Following Post Office v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council TLR 17/5/95, under condition 5, a permit holder was not to leave excluded roads until as near as practicable to the next planned stopping place. The permit was not concerned with commercial considerations when using the word 'practicable' but meant it in the sense of the vehicle being physically capable of going on the route. Appeals dismissed.
Appearances: John Hardy instructed by Jeremy Fear & Co, Tottenham, for the appellants. George Alliott instructed by Richard J Mellor, Twickenham, for the authority.
TLR 27/6/95; ILR 24/7/95
Tax on employees' share option scheme
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Reed International (1994).
(CA (Nourse LJ, Beldam LJ and Evans LJ) 20/7/95).
Summary: Application for alterations in company share option scheme following merger allowed for executive scheme but denied for SAYE scheme.
Appeals relating to two share option schemes by Reed International from decisions summarised below. Both schemes were approved by the Board of Inland Revenue under s.185 and Sch.9 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 so that the charge to Sch.E income tax under s.135 did not normally apply to gains realised on an exercise of the option. Instead there was a charge to capital gains tax when the shares were disposed of.