Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
6 October 2022
The Court reaffirms why it plays a vital role in critically analysing the need for interim orders
An extension to an interim order of conditions made in the public interest on the registration of a doctor acquitted of a rape failed the test of likelihood of serious damage to public confidence in the medical profession and was disproportionate where there was no connection between the allegation under investigation and the doctor's clinical practice
22 September 2022
Equity is less important than consistency in new fines scheme
The SRA is trying to lift penalties on traditional firms and solicitors but may be missing the mark. Senior figures at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have long held the view that the level of fines imposed on large law firms and their partners is too small.
6 September 2022
Hybrid working: how can firms manage the risks?
Julie Norris considers the problems presented by hybrid working
Hybrid working is now the new normal for many firms – and it offers significant advantages –
but we should also be prepared to manage the risks. Hybrid working is revolutionising the
way in which firms operate, as it is in so many other sectors. According to a survey by
Thomson Reuters, nearly nine out of ten (86 per cent) of UK lawyers would prefer hybrid
working, so that they can work remotely at least two days a week, while nearly two thirds (65
per cent) reported that remote working has had a positive impact on their well-being.
15 August 2022
Academic misconduct - the pressing issue for Universities and those accused
Being subjected to an academic integrity procedure is unnerving and bewildering. That’s why legal support from experienced disciplinary specialists is so important.
12 August 2022
Has the Supreme Court opened the gates to costs being awarded against regulators?
We previously covered this case, in which the Court of Appeal gave clear guidance as to circumstances in which a regulator can be ordered to pay costs. In short, the appeal arose from a decision by the CMA that Flynn Pharma and Pfizer had abused their dominant positions in the UK market by charging excessive prices for an epilepsy drug. Flynn Pharma and Pfizer appealed this decision to the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), which found the CMA had erred in its assessment of abuse of dominant position. In respect of costs, the CAT adopted a starting point of “costs follow the event”, and decided that Flynn and Pfizer were entitled to recover some of their costs from the CMA.
