We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-7 of 7

LGA MCADOLS resources
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • October 10 2016

The Local Government Association MCADOLS resources page has been updated recently to inclue a number of very useful guides, including:


The Supreme Court on vicarious liability: a view from inside Cox v Ministry of Justice
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • April 15 2016

The law of vicarious liability has recently been revisited by the Supreme Court in two important cases: Cox v Ministry of Justice and Mohamud v WM


Liability
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • April 15 2016

Since the last edition of this newsletter there have been numerous appellate court decisions involving issues of liability. In this piece we attempt


Report of the House of Lords Select Committee: The Equality Act 2010: the impact on disabled people
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • April 13 2016

The Equality Act 2010 received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. The Act brought together a number of statutes relating to discrimination into one


Short note: expert evidence and admissibility
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • April 13 2016

In Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP 2016 UKSC 6, the Supreme Court had to consider a Scottish appeal arising out of a personal injury claim made by


DOL appeals update
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • April 13 2016

Permission has been granted to the claimant to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court in the Ferreira case concerning deprivation of liberty in


Personal Injury Newsletter - December 2015
  • 39 Essex Chambers
  • United Kingdom
  • December 10 2015

On 12 and 13 October 2015, the Supreme Court heard the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice1. The central question in the appeal was whether prison