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.
Decisions are taken from LAWTEL's Case Law database. LTL: LAWTEL report; TLR: Times Law Reports; ILR: Independent Law Report. Calling further evidence where judgment reserved
Adrian Robert Bowden v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police (1998)
CA (Henry LJ, Otton LJ, Ward LJ) 9/6/98
Plaintiff's appeal from the order of HH Judge Rubery on 5 February 1998, granting leave to the defendant, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police, to call further evidence. The order was made notwithstanding that the evidence had not been the subject of an exchanged statement in accordance with CCR O.20 r.12(A) and that evidence and speeches in the case had been completed and judgment reserved. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming damages for injuries sustained in a police van while a remand prisoner. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff had been a passenger in one of their vans, but contended that any injuries he had sustained had been inflicted subsequently. A two-day trial took place and counsel gave closing speeches. Judgment was reserved. Thereafter a close friend of the plaintiff gave a statement to North Yorkshire Police which was conveyed to the defendant's officers. A copy of her statement was sent to the defendant's solicitors who informed the judge of it by letter stating that it was apparently credible and if believed was likely to influence the outcome of the trial. A short affidavit to that effect was then supplied by the defendant's solicitors. The substance and source of the evidence was not disclosed. At the application to adduce the evidence it was agreed between the parties and the judge that the latter should not see the statement or be informed of the identity of its maker. The judge directed that the evidence might be called but gave leave to appeal his order.