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.
John K Reames v The Guardian (1995). (QBD (Sir Michael Davies) 10/5/95).
Summary: Statement to be read in court in connection with a sum paid into court by the defendant and accepted in settlement of the plaintiff's libel action.
In an article published by The Guardian of 30/7/94 the defendants alleged that football team Kidderminster Harrier's inability to gain promotion to the Football League was because they were caught in a 'cussed deadlock' of league regulations which was a contrivance by the plaintiff. By its defence the defendant admitted publication of the words complained of but denied that they referred to or were defamatory of the plaintiff. Nevertheless the defendant had now paid a substantial sum into court in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff never desired to make money out of the action which was commenced solely for the purpose of vindicating the team's reputation. The team accepted the sum and wished to say publicly that there was no truth whatever in the suggestion that the inability of Kidderminster Harriers to gain promotion to the Football League was due to league regulations which were contrived by the plaintiff and it is glad a settlement has been concluded in the matter.
Commercially sensitive evidence in Lloyd's cases
Hallam-Eaves v Merrit Syndicates and ors (1995). (QBD (Cresswell J) 2/5/95).
Summary: Application for Lloyd's cases to be heard in camera refused.
Application by various interveners for an order that the substantive trials of the
Lloyd's cases be heard in camera constraining reference to aspects of evidence which were capable of damaging certain commercial interests.