The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... 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.
Where liability is admitted but quantum is in dispute
Peter Limb (Appellant) v (1) Union Jack Removals (in liquidation) (2) Jack Robert Honess (Respondents): McGivern v Brown: Partington v Turners Bakery: Pyne Edwards v Moore Large & Co: Smith v Brothers of Charity Services: Tomkins v Griffiths (1998)
Court: CA (Brooke LJ, Mummery LJ and Sir John Balcombe) 10/2/98
Summary: CCR order 9 r10 does not apply where the defendant does not admit both liability and the whole of the plaintiff's money claim. Defendants who make no admissions as to quantum must use alternative steps under the rules to end proceedings before trial.