DOCSLIB.ORG

Wills and Trusts Law Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wills and Trusts Law Reports Wills and Trusts Law Reports ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF REPORTED CASES January 2000 to November 2014 N. B. 1 All cases are from England & Wales unless otherwise stated 2 All English Court of Appeal decisions are Civil Division unless otherwise stated 3 WTLR(w) indicates a judgment, available to subscribers, held online at www.legalease.co,uk/WTLR Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported A A v A [2009] 1 Fam D v A WTLR(w) 2008-13 v Rothschild Trust Cayman Ltd [2006] 1129 Cayman GC A County Council v MS & anr [2014] 931 CoP A Trust, re, B v C [2011] 745 RC (Jersey) re the [2013] 1117 RC (Jersey) A Trust Company Ltd, re [2008] 377 RC (Jersey) A’s undertakings, re, B’s undertaking, re [2005] 1 SpC AB Re [2014] 1117 CoP AB (Revocation of Enduring Power of Attorney Re [2014] 1303 CoP A-B v Dobbs [2010] 931 Fam D AB Essex v IRC [2002] 1 SpC Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd v National Society for the Prevention of [2001] 953 Ch D v Cruelty to Children Abbott v Abbott [2009] 1675 Antigua & Barbuda CA ABC v XZ [2013] 187 CoP Abdullahi v Mudashiru [2004] 913 Ch D Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006] 377 QBD Abrahams [2007] 1 CA v Trustee of the Property of Abrahams [2000] 593 Ch D v Williams (see White v Williams) AC v DC [2013] 745 Fam D Accurate Financial Consultants v Koko Black [2009] 1685 Victoria CA (Aus) Adam & Co International Trustees Ltd v Theodore Goddard [2000] 349 Ch D Adams, re, Adams v Lewis [2001] 493 Ch D v Schofield [2004] 1049 CA Adekunle v Ritchie [2007] 1505 Leeds CC Aerostar v Wilson WTLR(w) 2010-11 Agarwala v Agarwala [2014] 373 Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported Agulian v Cyganik [2006] 565 CA Ahluwalia v Singh [2012] 1 Ch D (see also Singh v Ahluwalia on permission to appeal) AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co WTLR(w) 2012-2 [2013] 1303 CA AITC Foundation, re [2005] 1265 Charity Com Akhtar v Arif [2007] 35 Ch D Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2003] 1 Ch D v Al-Bassam (No 2) [2004] 157 Ch D v Al-Bassam (No 3) [2004] 757 CA Al Khudairi v Abbey Brokers WTLR(w) 2010-5 Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2002] 937 NSW CA (Aus) v Alexander [2012] 187 Ch D Alexander-David v L B of Hammersmith and Fulham [2009] 745 CA Alhamrani v Russa Management Ltd [2007] 1317 RC (Jersey) v Alhamrani [2008] 753 RC (Jersey) [2008] 941 CA (Jersey) Ali v Khan [2009] 187 CA Ali Haider V Syed [2014] 387 HC (Ch D) Alkin v Raymond [2010] 1117 Ch D Allan v Rea Brothers Trustees Ltd [2002] 625 CA Allardyce v Roebuck [2004] 779 Ch D Allen re, Lewis v Vincent [2008] 1691 HC (NZ) v HMRC [2005] 937 SpC Alliance & Leicester International Ltd, re [2004] 927 HC (IoM) Allnutt v Wilding [2006] 1317 Ch D [2007] 941 CA Amin v Amin WTLR(w) 2010-1 AMP General Insurance Ltd v Macalister Todd Phillips Bodkins [2006] 189 CA (NZ) AMP (UK) plc v Barker [2001] 1237 Ch D AN v Barclays Private Bank & Trust [2007] 565 GC (Cayman) (Cayman) Ltd Angora Trust, re Rosewood Trust v Schmidt [2001] 1081 HC (IoM) Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported (see Schmidt v Rosewood for appeal) Angus v Emmot (see Re Steel (Dec’d) Ani v Barclays Private Bank & Trust Ltd [2005] 469 RC (Jersey) Anker-Petersen v Anker-Petersen [2000] 581 Ch D v Christensen [2002] 313 Ch D Antle v R [2010] 373 Tax Ct (Can) Antoni v Antoni [2007] 1335 PC (Bahamas) Antrobus v IRC (see Lloyds TSB as PR of Antrobus deceased) AR v AR [2012] 373 Fam Ark v Kaur WTLR(w) 2010-10 Arkwright v IRC [2004] 181 SpC (for appeal see IRC v Arkwright) Arnander v HMRC [2007] 51 SpC Aroso v Coutts & Co [2001] 797 Ch D Ashcroft v Barnsdale [2010] 1675 Ch D Ashkettel, re [2013] 1331 Ch D Aspden v Elvy WTLR(w) 2012-4 Aston v Aston [2007] 1349 Guildford CC ATC (Cayman) Ltd v Rothschild Trust Cayman Ltd [2007] 951 GC (Cayman) Atkins v Dunn & Baker [2004] 477 CA Atkins the executors of v HMRCC [2011] 1675 FTT(TCC) Atkinson v HMRCC [2010] 745 FTT(TCC) Attorney-General v Charity Commission [2012] 977 UT(TCC) v Charity Commission [2012] 41 UT(TCC) v Trustees of the British Museum [2005] 781 Ch D Attorney–General (Cayman Islands) v Wahr-Hansen [2001] 345 PC (Cayman) Austin v Woodward [2012] 559 Ch D Avalon Trust, re the [2007] 1693 RC (Jersey) Avens v Foreman & Hill (see Hulbert v Avens) Avis v Turner [2007] 1521 CA Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported B B re, B v T [2013] 763 CA (Guernsey) v B [2010] 1689 Fam D B Trust, re [2007] 1361 RC (Jersey) Bacon v Howard Kennedy [2000] 169 Ch D Badfinger Music v Evans [2001] 1 Ch D Bahouse v Negus [2012] 1117 CA Bagus Investments v Kastening [2012] 1675 JRC Bailey v Warren [2006] 753 CA Bailhache Labesse Trustees Ltd v HMRCC [2008] 967 SpC Baker (dec’d), re Baker v Baker [2008] 565 Ch D Baker v Baker [2008] 1317 Ch D Baldry, re [2004] 609 Fam D Balfour (dec’d), re Brander v HMRCC [2009] 1117 FTT(TC) (see HMRCC v Brander for appeal) Balfron Trustees Ltd v Petersen [2002] 157 Ch D Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2000] 1049 CA Banks v National Westminster Bank plc [2006] 1693 Ch D Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] 473 CA Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd v McDougall [2001] 23 Ch D v HMRCC [2011] 1489 CA Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd v Chamberlain [2007] 1697 Cayman GC Bardissy v d’Souza [2003] 929 HC (HK) Barker-Benfield, re Hansen v Barker-Benfield [2006] 1141 Ch D Barlow (dec’d), re Dalton v Ellis [2008] 1333 NSWSC (Aus) Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2004] 1365 HC (IoM) [2005] 1453 PC (IoM) Barnes v Tomlinson [2007] 377 Ch D Barns Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported v Barns [2005] 1093 HC (Aus) Barr’s Settlement Trusts, re Abacus Trust Co (IoM) Ltd v Barr [2003] 149 Ch D Barrass v Harding [2000] 1071 CA Barrett v Barrett [2009] 201 Ch D v Bem [2011] 1117 Ch D [2012] 567 CA v HMRC [2006] 403 Lands Tribunal v Rutt-Field [2006] 1505 SCCO Bartlam v Coutts & Co [2006] 1165 Ch D Barton, re Tod v Barton [2002] 469 Ch D Bassett v Bassett [2005] 51 NSWSC (Aus) Bates, re Bates v Wheildon [2008] 1705 Ch D Bath and North East Somerset Council v Attorney-General [2002] 1257 Ch D Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance v Jenkinson [2001] 353 Ch D Bathurst v Kleinwort Benson (CI) Trustees Ltd [2007] 959 RC (Guernsey) Bayes-Walker v Bayes-Walker [2011] 1143 Ch D Bayley & ors v SG Associates & ors [2014] 1315 Ch D Baynes v Hedger [2008] 1719 Ch D [2009] 759 CA Baynes Clarke v Corless [2010] 751 CA Bayoumi v Women’s Total Abstinence Educational [2003] 317 Ch D Union (for appeal see Perkins v WTAEU) Beard v Shadler [2011] 1147 Ch D Beatty’s Will Trusts (No 2), re Brooke v Thompson-Jones [2008] 1351 Ch D Beckman v IRC [2003] 773 SpC Behague v HMRC [2014] 187 FTT (TC) Bell, re Bell v Georgiou [2002] 1105 Ch D Ben Nevis (Holdings Ltd v HMRC [2014] 1 CA Bennett, re Papouis v Gibson-West [2004] 485 Ch D Bentine v Bentine [2014] 197 Ch D Berger Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported v Berger [2014] 35 CA Bernstein, re Bernstein v Jacobson [2010] 559 Ch D Berube v Gudsell WTLR(w) 2008-16 Bessie Taube Discretionary Settlement Trust, trustees of v HMRCC [2011] 1 FTT(TC) Best v HMRC [2014] 409 FTT (TC) Betafence Ltd v Veys [2006] 941 Ch D Betsam Trust, re McBurney v McBurney [2009] 1489 Ch D Bhatt v Bhatt [2009] 1117 Ch D Bhullar Bros Ltd, re Bhullar v Bhullar [2003] 1397 CA Bieber v Tethers Ltd [2013] 1 CA Bingham v HMRCC [2013] FTT(TC) Birch v Curtis [2002] 965 Ch D Bird Charitable Trust and Bird Purpose Trust, re Basel Trust Corp (Channel Islands) Ltd [2008] 1505 RC (Jersey) v Anstalt Bishop v Bishop WTLR(w) 2009-1 BJ v MJ [2012] 395 Fam Blackett v Darcy [2006] 581 NSWSC (Aus) Blackman v Man [2008] 389 Ch D Blair v Vallely [2000] 615 HC (NZ) Blech v Blech [2002] 483 Ch D Bloom, re Bernstein v the Queen [2004] 613 SC BC (Can) Bluck v Information Commissioner [2008] 1 Information Tribunal Boehm’s estate, re [2004] 1411 CQB Sask (Can) Boff, re [2013] 1349 CoP Bonham v Blake Lapthorn Linnell [2007] 189 Ch D v Fishwick WTLR(w) 2008-15 Booth v Booth [2010] 941 CA Borman v Lel (see Re Parsons) Boswell Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported v Lawson [2011] 931 CA Bott v Macaulay [2007] 235 SCJ Ont (Can) Boudh v Bodh [2008] 411 CA Bouette v Rose [2000] 403 CA Bower (dec’d), Executors of estate of v HMRCC [2008] 987 SpC Bowles, re Hayward v Jackson [2003] 329 Ch D Bowman v Fels [2005] 481 CA Bowring v HMRC WTLR(w) 2013-6 BQ v DQ [2011] 373 SC (Bermuda) Bracken Partners Ltd v Gutteridge [2003] 1253 Ch D Bradbury v Taylor [2013] 29 CA Bradstock Group Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Bradstock Group Plc [2002] 1281 Ch D Branston & Gothard Ltd, re Hill v Phillips [2007] 85 Ch D Breadner v Granville-Grossman [2000] 829 Ch D [2001] 377 Ch D (costs) [2006] 411 Ch D Breakspear v Ackland [2008] 777 Ch D Broadbent, re Imperial Cancer Research Fund v Bradley [2001] 967 CA Broere v Mourant & Co (Trustees) Ltd [2004] 1417 CA (Jersey) Brooke & ors Purton & ors [2014] 745 Ch D Broome v HMRCC [2012] 585 FTT(TC Brown v Deacy [2002] 781 Ch D v HM Queen Mother’s Executors [2007] 1129 Fam D [2008] 425 CA v InnovatorOne plc WTLR(w) 2012-3 v Stephenson [2013] 1675 Ch D Brown Shipley Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd v Holland (see Re CSI Trust) Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan v Moore & ors [2014] 559 Ch D Buck v HMRCC [2009] 215 SpC Buckenham v Dickinson [2000] 1083 Ch D Buckley, re [2013] 373 CoP Wills and Trusts Law Reports: Index of Cases Reported Buffrey v Buffrey WTLR(w) 2009-2 Buggs v Buggs [2004] 799 Ch D Bulley v Attorney-General of New Zealand WTLR(w) 2012-1 Bunting v W [2005] 955 CoP Burden v
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Anglo-American Revolution in Tort Choice of Law Principles: Paradigm Shift Or Pandora’S Box?
    THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN TORT CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES: PARADIGM SHIFT OR PANDORA’S BOX? Alan Reed* I. INTRODUCTION Gallons of ink spill across the law review pages as the conflicts revolution engages a counter-revolution in a rhubarb as esoteric and perplexing as anything American law has ever known.1 The landscape of American conflicts law has undergone a fundamental reorientation.2 The altered canvas is most vivid in the choice of law arena, particularly in relation to governing principles in tort.3 After decades of experimentation, we are left with dominant greys and innumerable shades: a bewildering chiaroscuro effect that confuses academicians, practitioners and 4 judges. The prevailing American methodology has recently infected the scepter’d isle. The result is the recognition that the legal system should put certain constructs to rest because their utility is long-gone and their specters confound our thinking. Accordingly, recent and radical changes in the English tort choice of law rules now supplement century-old laws. These alterations in * Alan Reed graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge University in 1988 with a first class honours degree in law (B.A 1988 and M.A. 1991), and was awarded the Herbert Smith prize for private international law attaining the highest examination grade in that subject. Cambridge University also granted him a full Holland Scholarship to facilitate study in the U.S. and he obtained an LL.M. Masters of Law (comparative law) at the University of Virginia in 1990. On his return to England, he spent two years in practice with Theodore Goddard in London, whilst additionally teaching law at Trinity College, Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-76255-7 - Corporate Lawyers and Corporate Governance Joan Loughrey Frontmatter More information CORPORATE LAWYERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE This assessment of the corporate governance role of corporate lawyers in the United Kingdom analyses the extent to which lawyers can and should act as gatekeepers, counsellors and reputational intermediaries. Focusing on external and in-house lawyers’ roles in both dispersed share-ownership and owner-managed companies, Joan Loughrey highlights the conflicts of interest that are endemic in corporate representation and examines how lawyers should respond when corporate agents provide instructions con- trary to the company client’s interests. She also considers the legitimacy of ‘creative compliance’,the ethical arguments for and against lawyers pri- oritising the public interest over their clients’ interests, and their exposure to liability if they fail to perform a corporate governance role. Finally, she considers whether the reforms to the legal profession will promote the lawyer’s corporate governance role and advances suggestions for reform. joan loughrey is currently the Director of the Centre for Business Law and Practice at the School of Law, University of Leeds, where her research interests include corporate law, corporate governance, and ethics and the legal profession. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-76255-7 - Corporate Lawyers and Corporate Governance Joan Loughrey Frontmatter More information international corporate law and financial market regulation Recent years have seen an upsurge of change and reform in corporate law and financial market regulation internationally as the corporate and institutional investor sector increasingly turns to the international financial markets.
    [Show full text]
  • School of Law Alumni Magazine — Issue Six 2020 Contents Welcome
    SHAPING LEEDS THE FUTURE LAW TOGETHER School of Law Alumni Magazine — Issue Six 2020 Contents Welcome FEATURES Welcome School of Law Alumni Magazine This year was always going to involve some change for the Law School with Professor Alastair Mullis moving to take up the role of Interim Executive EDITOR Beth Hastings-Trew Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the start of January 2020. School Support Office (Alumni and Communications) As Deputy Head of School I was to assume Our colleagues have responded to this new world As our very recent past has demonstrated we are the position of Interim Head of School during not only through dramatically reorienting how they more than capable of meeting the challenges Alastair’s term as Interim Executive Dean and it teach and support students, but also through ahead and we will continue to strive to make was to be a fairly straight-forward task of holding research that addresses the societal challenges a real difference to the world. Whether this is the fort until his return in January 2021. posed by COVID-19. This includes considering through our research or through supporting how it will impact international trade, crime our students to become graduates who will KEEP IN TOUCH In autumn 2019 School life continued much rates, the human rights implications of COVID-19 go out and make significant contributions to Phone: +44 (0)113 343 7209 as normal. legislation and the role of parks in a pandemic. society. This is, after all, the year when an Email: [email protected] Colleagues have reached out and spoken to alumnus of the Law School became the Leader Facebook: facebook.com/lawunileeds Twitter: @law_leeds We welcomed our new undergraduate students the media and policy makers on a number of of the Opposition (Sir Keir Starmer ‘85).
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Law Practice
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 10 1994 Transnational Law Practice Richard L. Abel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard L. Abel, Transnational Law Practice, 44 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 737 (1994) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol44/iss2/10 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. TRANSNATIONAL LAW PRACTICE Richard L. Abelt T RANSNATIONAL law practice has grown dramatically in recent years, but scholarship has not kept pace. This Article fills the void in three different, yet related, ways. The first section seeks to explain the patterns of transnational law practice that have emerged in recent decades. The second describes the constraints on transnational practice, especially those imposed by national and supranational regulation. I conclude with proposals about how lawyers, professional organizations, and governments should regulate transnational law practice. Since there is no comprehensive account of the growth of transnational law practice, I have appended one, drawn from a wide variety of sources, including Martindale-Hubbell, the International Financial Law Review, and Business Lawyer,' as well as a dozen interviews with lawyers in t Professor, U.C.L.A. (B.A., 1962, Harvard; LL.B., 1965, Columbia; Ph.D., 1974, London). 1. In addition to the sources cited throughout the entire article, I have benefitted from consulting a number of sources, see generally MARC GALANTER & THOMAS PALAY, TOURNAMENT OF LAWYERS: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE BIG LAW FIRM (1991); LAW FIRMS IN EUROPE (John Pritchard ed., 1992); Alice Finn, Foreign Lawyers: Regulation of Foreign Lawyers in Japan, 28 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • Jomati Lawyer Article
    Legal Week 23rd September 2004 Dial M for merger Stagnating turnover in a mature market is forcing many UK firms to revisit the merger option, despite the considerable hurdles, says Tony Williams The last few years have seen precious little domestic merger activity among mid-sized UK firms. The most recent exception was the merger between Addleshaw Booth & Co and Theodore Goddard to create Addleshaw Goddard. But even in that case Theodore Goddard had been in play for a few years and had come close to merger on at least one previous occasion. There has been more activity between US and UK-based firms, but they still only account for about one transaction a year — the last two being Mayer Brown and Rowe & Maw and Jones Day and Gouldens. However, albeit from a low base, there are the initial signs of increased activity. Two US/UK deals are currently in the public domain. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart is likely to merge with Nicholson Graham & Jones and DLA is in the final stages of its negotiations with Piper Rudnick. In addition, national firm Pinsents is looking to expand its London capability by a merger with Masons, which will create a top 15 UK firm. Other discussions are continuing at various levels of intensity and many are more than just a twinkle in the managing partner’s eye. Within the US there has been far more merger activity, particularly among the smaller firms, as lawyers have started to provide a credible capability in many of the larger US business and financial centres. Indeed, the second stage of consolidation appears to be occurring, with a number of mid-sized US firms contemplating merger.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Names Move Into Records Management
    THE LEADER IN LEGAL TECHNOLOGY NEWS Issue 146 Big names move into records management Hummingbird has acquired LegalKEY Technologies, a New York-based software company best known for its electronic records management and conflicts of interest checking systems. With effective records management, including corporate document retention policies, now high on the agenda for law firms in the wake of Enron and similar scandals, there has been a suggestion that in an ideal world, the best possible approach is a combination of a conventional document management system linked to a records management system that, like LegalKEY, could handle both paper and electronic files. Hummingbird will now be able to deliver this integrated solution from one source. LegalKEY will function as a subsidiary of Hummingbird and continue to serve its existing clientele - UK users include Clifford Finers to roll out DDS Chance, Norton Rose and Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw. The on practice-wide basis executive management of LegalKEY will also remain in charge of the LegalKEY operation, while for LegalKEY customers running Finers Stephens Innocent is to roll out the rival iManage DMS, Hummingbird will offer a free migration BigHand’s TotalSpeech digital dictation package from iManage to Hummingbird DM5. workflow management system to 122 users Commenting on the deal, Hummingbird UK country across the firm, following the completion of manager Liz Maloney described the move as part of a broader a pilot project in the firm’s property strategy to provide complete life cycle management of department. The firm’s IT manager Nick documents, knowledge repositories, digital and paper records, Boarland said the pilot, which began in and client and matter information.
    [Show full text]
  • Megalaw in the U.K.: Professionalism Or Corporatism? a Preliminary Report
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 8 Summer 1989 Megalaw in the U.K.: Professionalism or Corporatism? A Preliminary Report John Flood Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Flood, John (1989) "Megalaw in the U.K.: Professionalism or Corporatism? A Preliminary Report," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 64 : Iss. 3 , Article 8. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol64/iss3/8 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Megalaw in the U.K.: Professionalism or Corporatism? A Preliminary Report JoHN FLOOD* INTRODUCTION The large law firms in America have become behemoths. Baker and McKenzie is the largest firm in the world, scattering over 1,200 attorneys in forty-four offices throughout the globe; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and rom is the largest domestic firm in the United States, employing roughly 900 lawyers.1 Others are not far behind. The only professional 2 organisations equivalent in size are the Big Eight accounting firms. Although large law firms have been in existence since the 1870s, 3 the 4 behemoth law firm is a comparatively recent development on Wall Street. These megafirms are a facet of contemporary legal systems, their devel- opment fueled by an active and expanding economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lex Mercatoria: Law Sites
    Lex Mercatoria: Law Sites Ralph Amissah copy @ lexmercatoria.org Copyright © 2004 Ralph Amissah SiSU lexmercatoria.org ii Contents Contents Lex Mercatoria: Law Sites 1 Law Sites - Other Subject Areas 1 International Business/Commercial Law ....................... 1 International Trade Law ................................ 1 International Economic Law .............................. 2 Information Technology Law .............................. 3 Law and Economics .................................. 4 Public International Law ................................ 4 Law and Politics .................................... 4 Law Sites - Miscellany 5 Some Influential Academic Law Sites on The Internet ............... 5 Worldwide .................................... 5 US ........................................ 5 Britain ...................................... 6 Australia ..................................... 7 Law Universities and Academics ........................... 7 Law on The Internet - Treaties, Conventions, Model Laws, Rules and Forms .. 8 Treaties, Conventions, Model Laws and Rules ................ 8 Contract Forms ................................. 9 Law Libraries, Publishers and Research Guides .................. 9 Law Publishers ................................. 10 Law Libraries .................................. 10 Research Guides ................................ 11 Law Journals and Periodicals ............................. 11 Law Firms and Associations .............................. 12 Law Associations ................................ 12 Law
    [Show full text]
  • LEGAL TECHNOLOGY Insider
    CHARLES CHRISTIAN’s LEGAL TECHNOLOGY iNSIDER THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO WHAT’S HOT (AND WHAT’S NOT) IN LAW OFFICE SYSTEMS ➦ Warren believes the new exhibitors ALL CHANGE will create an interesting change of em- In this AT phasis at the show, with a shift towards edition… the increasingly vital topic of digital THE BARBICAN communications, including the Internet American legal When the UK’s leading legal techno- and intranets. supplier group logy event – the Solicitors & Legal Truemist are also introducing a facing collapse… 2 Office Exhibition – kicks off at number of other innovations this year, London’s Barbican Centre in June, the including improved facilities for exhibitors Elite in banking show will witness one of the biggest and a conference area where seminars deal with Royal shake-ups in its 14 year history. and workshop sessions can be held. Bank… 3 Within the last few weeks Quill Changes are also being introduced to the Computer Systems, MSS Management regional Software for Solicitors show, Flurry of activity in Support Systems, Timeslice and Videss with the autumn Midlands and Northern voice technology Computer Systems have all confirmed events being combined in a two day market… 4 they will not be attending the 1997 event. exhibition at the Manchester G-Mex This is in addition to AIM Professional Centre in October. MSS and Dickson and Access Legal Systems, who Haslam show the announced they were pulling out last ☞ Comment… So why are the likes of way with remote year, and major suppliers such as Miles Quill, AIM. MSS and Norwel no longer systems for the 33 and Norwel who ceased attending in going to the Barbican? High Street… 5 recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue 48 ❶ 13 October 1997 LEGAL TECHNOLOGY Insider LATEST NEWS COMMENT & ANALYSIS
    CHARLES CHRISTIAN’s £5.00 LEGAL TECHNOLOGY iNSIDER http://www.cloudnine.co.uk THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO WHAT’S HOT (AND WHAT’S NOT) IN LAW OFFICE SYSTEMS In association with ➦ In terms of technology, VCL has KAYE IN NEW adopted the keep-it-simple approach of VIDEO LINK dedicated video conferencing systems rather than linking it to high powered INITIATIVE PCs. Two hardware options will be North London solicitor and law office available: a set top box that allows users In this technology entrepreneur Michael to conduct a video conference through a edition… Kaye last week launched a new video conventional television set and a smaller conferencing initiative aimed at videophone for one-to-one use. Web-enabled barristers’ chambers and smaller firms Both systems are manufactured systems, will they of solicitors who want to be able to cut by Motion Media Technology of Bristol take off ? … 2 out some of the travelling currently and support the H.320 industry associated with their legal work. standard, so they can communicate with MCS and Peapod According to Kaye, a long-time compatible systems from other suppliers. clash… 2 advocate of speech recognition systems, The set top box retails for approximately as well as a major backer of the recently £3500, while the videophone price is Lotus Notes launched NKT interactive internet service, £1500. The videophone offers 15 frames bounces back… 3 what lawyers really want from video per second quality as opposed to the 5 conferencing are not the desktop PC frames per second of some other systems. Five go “live” computing features but the ability to Users also need to install an ISDN2 line with AIM… 3 have face-to-face meetings with counsel although this can then be used for other and clients without the hassle of travel.
    [Show full text]
  • Marc Keidan Partner
    Marc Keidan Partner Tel: +44 (0) 203 733 8808 Email: [email protected] Marc Keidan co-founded Keidan Harrison LLP in May 2020. He is recognised by the leading legal directories as one of the UK’s top disputes lawyers. Chambers & Partners describes him as ‘a great strategist’, and The Legal 500 says he is ‘a no-nonsense lawyer who gets results for his clients’ and has a ‘willingness to get stuck into difficult fights’. Background Marc obtained a First Class Honours degree from Manchester University and achieved a distinction in the Legal Practice Course at the College of Law, London. He trained with the international law firm Simmons & Simmons, joining the dispute resolution group of City of London firm Theodore Goddard upon his qualification as a solicitor in 1999. During his time with Theodore Goddard (subsequently Addleshaw Goddard) he acted for a number of blue-chip clients, both domestic and international, on various contentious matters, including complex High Court commercial, financial and insolvency cases. In January 2009, Marc co-founded the successful City of London disputes boutique Cooke, Young & Keidan, assisting that firm to win the Boutique Firm of the Year at The Lawyer Awards in 2013. In May 2020, Marc co-founded Keidan Harrison LLP, together with Luke Harrison. Practice and experience Marc advises on high value commercial and financial litigation and international arbitration across a range of industry sectors (including financial and professional, IT/tech, commercial property, manufacturing, mining and commodities). His expertise includes commercial agency and joint venture disputes, civil fraud and asset tracing cases, as well as partnership/LLP, shareholder and corporate disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO: TYNWALD RETIRES a TRUSTEE DILEMMA by Andrew Newton and Alicia Cain
    SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO: TYNWALD RETIRES A TRUSTEE DILEMMA by Andrew Newton and Alicia Cain Fourteen years ago the decision of the Honourable Justice Evans-Lombe on a preliminary issue in the case of Adams Co. Int. Trustees Ltd v Theodore Goddard [2000] W.T.L.R. 349 (Ch D) highlighted a particular nuance of English trust law: the status of the trust corporation as a trustee. The Trusts (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Trusts Bill), which now awaits Royal Assent, addresses the role and importance of the trust corporation in Manx trust law, providing a change in the law that will assist trust practitioners in the future administration and transfer of trusts to and from the Isle of Man. Adams Co. involved a professional negligence suit brought against the English law firm Theodore Goddard (now Addleshaw Goddard) over purported negligence in its retirement of two trustees to facilitate the transfer of a trust from England to the Channel Islands. The salient point in the decision was that in replacing the two individual trustees with a company which was not a trust corporation, the requirements of the English Trustee Act 1925 (the English Trustee Act) had not been complied with and therefore the appointment had not been effective to discharge both of the trustees. In essence, a trustee who purported to retire remained as trustee and would still be personally liable for breaches of trustees’ duties. This might also mean that a trust has not divested itself of an unwanted residency status leaving on-going tax and regulatory implications.
    [Show full text]