Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (244)
- Company/Commercial (124)
- Employment (111)
- Regulatory and compliance (70)
- Real Estate (67)
- Banking / Finance (52)
- Corporate (49)
- Financial services (47)
- Intellectual Property (38)
- Pensions (30)
- Construction (29)
- Tax (28)
- Insolvency & restructuring (25)
- Information Technology (24)
- Energy (20)
- Planning (20)
- Funds (17)
- Crime (16)
- Environment (16)
- Healthcare (15)
- Commodities (13)
- Family (13)
- Insurance/reinsurance (12)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (12)
- Human Rights (10)
- Competition/EU (8)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (8)
- Private Equity (8)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (8)
- Personal tax / Trusts (7)
- Professional Indemnity/Negligence (7)
- Pharma/Biotech (6)
- Business Tax (5)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (3)
- In-House (2)
- Personal Injury (2)
- Privacy and reputation (2)
- Private Client (2)
- Telecoms (2)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Travel and Tourism (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s food & drink specialists explain what de-listing is, what the guidance says and what all of this means for supermarkets and suppliers.
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co specialists provide information on the proposed Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
The double tax treaty between France and Luxembourg contains a favourable tax regime for capital gains on shares of real-estate companies.
Employment update — December 2014: contract variations; holiday pay; shared parental leave; and more
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s employment experts bring you the latest developments that may affect your business.
If recent surveys are an accurate reflection, there may be more interest in shared parental leave than originally anticipated.
How can a company prove that its designer came up with a print independently?
The DIFC has released a month-long public consultation on its draft rules relating to succession and inheritance matters for non-Muslims with assets in Dubai.
Exotic trademarks have always been difficult to get on the register.
This was the finding in GSM Export (UK) Ltd (in Administration) and another v Revenue & Customs Commissioners, in which GSM Export appealed against a refusal of repayment of input tax.
In an unexpected about turn, Unite has announced that it will not pursue an appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Bear Scotland v Fulton.
The courts can and will order professional funders of hopeless litigation to pay costs on an indemnity basis
In Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone, Excalibur’s claim for $1.6bn in relation to an alleged interest in a profitable oil field in Kurdistan was dismissed, with indemnity costs ordered against it.
The remit of disclosure orders under section 236 and the distinction between information and documentation
The Chancery Division has granted liquidators’ application for disclosure of documents under s236 Insolvency Act 1986 in order to help them investigate possible claims against the respondents.
In James & Anr v Chircop, the court entered judgment against the defendants (James and another) due to failure to attend the trial.
The Chancery division allowed liquidators’ application for disclosure of documents under s.236 Insolvency Act 1986 in order to investigate possible claims against the respondents.
The knowledge referred to under s14(A) of the Limitation Act 1980 (s14(A)) is knowledge of the material facts about the damage and time starts to run from that knowledge.
The High Court has considered the duty owed by the defendants to the claimant when selling an interest rate hedging product, and whether the defendants had breached that duty.
In two recent cases, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered the issues of assignment for managers.
The Privy Council in Bermuda has handed down judgment in the connected cases of Singularis and Saad.
Where evidence indicates that a charging order does not fully secure a judgment debt, the creditor can issue a statutory demand for the unsecured part.
This was the finding of the High Court in Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Shlosberg.