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.
The former head of RBS Fred Goodwin had one; Chelsea Football Club captain John Terry was refused one; and former Big Brother star Imogen Thomas wants one lifted.
Everyone is talking about super-injunctions and the celebrities behind them.
This morning, wanting to give some clarity to the ill-informed debate on injunctions and privacy, the Master of the Rolls (MR) Lord Neuberger published his much anticipated report on injunctions and their use.
Newspapers should be given advance warning of injunction applications but there should be no fast track appeal system to challenge their existence, the MR recommends.
The report also reveals that only two super-injunctions, legal orders which bar individuals from publicising or informing others of their existence, have been granted since the John Terry case in January last year.
Such injunctions, the MR said, should only be granted when it is “absolutely necessary” and should be regularly reviewed by the court.
The report states: “As they incorporate derogations from the principle of open justice, super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions can only be granted when they are strictly necessary. They cannot be granted so as to become in practice permanent.”
New practice guidelines will be issued clarifying the procedure for applying for an interim injunction, which will be renamed ‘interim non-disclosure orders’.
Consideration should also be given to a data collection system for all non-disclosure orders and the data should be published annually.
Parliamentarians should be better informed about the existence of such court orders to help them avoid breaking court orders, but, adds the MR, Parliamentary privilege “is an absolute privilege and is of the highest constitutional importance”.
However, the MR stops short of wading into the row over the Human Rights Act, stating that it would have been “inappropriate” for the committee to have considered substantive law reform which is a matter for Parliament.
Lawyers have welcomed the report saying it adds balance to the roaring debate over injunctions.
Lewis Silkin head of defamation Rod Dadak said: “Lord Neuberger’s proposal is necessary and pragmatic and should go some way in pacifying the media. His recommendations reflect society’s concerns over secrecy in relation to justice and an increasingly proactive judiciary who are anxious to be seen to be acting fairly.”