June 2004 June 2005

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

June 2004 June 2005 iIssn 1475-4711 June 20042005 Contents Editorial 2 interests and activities. Its primary difference from autism component of his damages. Some reference was made Education – stale claims is that there is no general retardation in language or to the Phelps decision and the award for loss of earnings cognitive development). in that case. The CA suggested a figure nearer £15,000 would be appropriate in this case. In puberty the claimant developed a preoccupation with 3 The claimant was unable to recover the damages young girls and fire setting. He was convicted of arson for the consequences of his convictions for arson. and lost opportunity and was made the subject of a restriction order under the Clunis v Camden & Islington (1998) QB978 applied. Mental Health Act 1983. 4 The court was especially critical of the case management Public inquiries – fairness and privilege of this case which had led to the joint statement of the Despite the landmark House of Lords decision provisions of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 33 of the The trial was unusual in that the defendant education psychiatrists being produced on day one of the trial and in Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon (HL Limitation Act 1980. authority did not call any independent expert educational the defendant’s educational psychologist not being psychology evidence and instead relied on the evidence of given the opportunity to counter late served expert 27 July 2000), so called ‘failure to educate’ Their Lordships agreed that the earlier Court of Appeal the two educational psychologists involved in the material from the claimant. In particular the court said claims have remained difficult to prove and (CA) decision in Robinson v St Helens Metropolitan BC claimant’s original assessment. that in future education negligence claims any order for Jim Sherwood 3 win. Two recent court decisions highlight the (2003) PIQR P128 had been rightly decided. A negligent expert evidence should require the expert to identify the difficulties for prospective claimants. failure to ameliorate the consequences of dyslexia by The trial judge found that the educational psychologist learned articles, text book entries and research studies appropriate teaching may be said to constitute an injury. (Mr Moreland) had been negligent in failing to identify the relied on (as is commonly done in clinical negligence They believed that it was too fine a distinction to say that claimant’s complex social and communication needs – such claims). The senior procedure master was to consider In David Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council the neglect had caused no injury because nothing could needs not being appropriately catered for at the school to standard directions in these cases. The court also (HL 17 June 2004), the House of Lords was concerned be done to repair the congenital damage in the brain, or which he was sent. On causation the judge held that the emphasised that expert witnesses must not be permitted with the thorny issue of limitation. The claimant was to argue that the other parts of the brain which would failure to send the claimant to an appropriate school to depart substantially from their written report unless educated by the defendant between 1977 and 1988. He have to be trained to compensate had never been injured. resulted in a loss of opportunity for the defendant to learn the trial judge was satisfied that there would be no issued proceedings when he was aged 30 in June 2002. how to improve his social and communication skills, to injustice to the parties. Furthermore, the trial judge The claimant suffered from dyslexia. The distinctive The majority of their Lordships also concluded that whilst manage his behavioural difficulties and to gain an end should not (without good reason) adopt a differential Pleural plaques – anxious times ahead features of this condition are a combination of average to his dyslexia might have inhibited the claimant from qualification. He ordered damages to be assessed on that approach towards evidence from different categories of good general mental ability with severe and long term seeking advice, he ought reasonably to have sought basis. The local educational authority appealed. witness (ie expert and lay witnesses) as was done by the difficulties in reading, writing and spelling. It is not expert advice years ago. In the absence of evidence that trial judge in this case. curable but in some cases suitable teaching can his injury prevented him from seeking expert opinion In the CA, the appeal on liability was dismissed. The ameliorate its effects. about its cause, it could not be assumed that any such appeal on causation was allowed and the case was Undoubtedly, the defendants were hindered at trial by difficulty existed. Their Lordships therefore concluded that remitted for the judge to assess damages on the basis of the decision not to call their own, fresh expert evidence. Mr Adams’ dyslexia was not formally diagnosed until the relevant date of knowledge for the purposes of their findings on causation. The key findings were: The case does still demonstrate the considerable John Harland 6 November 1999. Prior to that he had known that he had considering limitation accrued well before the three years 1 The evidence of the defendant’s psychologist was evidential hurdles which claimants need to overcome suffered from some psychological affect linked to his poor prior to the issue of the summons. The defendant’s appeal admissible. The fact that such an expert might lack the where they are suffering from a complex behavioural reading and writing skills. was allowed and the action dismissed. This case is of objectivity of an independent expert went to the issue emotional and learning problem (a common feature in particular interest to insurers and local education of cogency not admissibility. Whilst critical of the these claims). The defendants must always focus on The claimant argued that for the purpose of limitation his authorities because of the strong policy stance taken judge’s approach, the court believed that what would have been the outcome but for the alleged date of knowledge was November 1999. He relied on the against stale claims – a particular feature of these he had balanced the testimony of the claimant’s expert professional negligence or alternative teaching options, decision in Phelps that a failure to ameliorate a congenital education claims. It also reaffirms the personal injury against the defendant’s educational psychologist which it is maintained should have been provided in condition can constitute a personal injury and that a three classification for this type of claim. (despite not expressly doing so in his judgment) and the first place. Often the teaching regime suggested by year limitation period applied subject, of course, to the that it would be wrong to order a re-trial on this basis. the claimant would have made no material difference In DN (by his father and litigation friend RN) v London 2 On causation, the trial judge had overstated the effect to the outcome in any event. Stress: rising pressure, rising claims Borough of Greenwich (CA 8 December 2004), the of the expert psychiatric evidence and had been wrong CA was concerned with a first instance decision of Judge to find that the defendant’s negligence had caused the It is also encouraging to see the courts starting to treat Overend concerning an adverse finding on liability claimant to lose the opportunity to learn how to these claims with the specific procedural interest that they and causation against the defendant local education improve his social skills etc. The judge should have deserve and which has until now been reserved to other authority. The claimant was assessed and found to have approached the question by considering, on the specialised claims. special educational needs at the age of 5. At 10 the balance of probabilities, what would have been the Vivienne Williams 9 defendant’s educational psychologist prepared a report likely outcome if the claimant had gone to an and in consequence the claimant was educated at a appropriate school. The claimant had at all material school for children with educational behavioural times been severely damaged (independent of his difficulties. It was not until the age of 12 that he was Asperger’s Syndrome) and all the experts could say on diagnosed as suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome (this the balance of probabilities was that the outcome syndrome is characterised by the kind of abnormalities of would have been better or different if his education had reciprocal social interaction that typify autism coupled been different. The court held that the claimant could Jeff Wale with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive reservoir of only justify a small award for the loss of earnings Partner, BLM Southampton Education – stale claims and lost opportunity 12 DISCLOSURE • JUNE 2005 DISCLOSURE • JUNE 2005 13 Jeff Wale 12 Page 12: Are specialist claims gaining the interest they deserve? Council cleared of corporate manslaughter Chris Green 14 The CA responds to To catch a thief dishonest claimant Julian Smart 16 Yvonne Painting v University of Oxford Mrs Painting was employed by the University of Oxford as an administrator. On 1 June 1999 she fell from a stepladder whilst fetching a file from a shelf and sustained a back injury. It was her responsibility to ensure that work equipment was in good order. At the time of the accident she was heavily pregnant. The University conceded primary liability for the accident and the claimant accepted a reduction of 20% in respect of contributory negligence. The CA responds to dishonest claimant The claimant commenced proceedings relying The defendant applied for an order that the claimant upon evidence from an orthopaedic surgeon who pay the defendant’s costs, on the basis that the defendant recommended that the claimant should be examined had ‘won’ the case, albeit that the claimant had beaten by a spinal surgeon.
Recommended publications
  • The Use of Management Consultants by the NHS and the Department of Health
    House of Commons Health Committee The use of management consultants by the NHS and the Department of Health Fifth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 April 2009 HC 28 [Incorporating HC 28-i and 340-i] Published on 4 June 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Health Committee The Health Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Health and its associated bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chairman) Charlotte Atkins MP (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West) Sandra Gidley MP (Liberal Democrat, Romsey) Stephen Hesford MP (Labour, Wirral West) Dr Doug Naysmith MP (Labour, Bristol North West) Mr Lee Scott MP (Conservative, Ilford North) Dr Howard Stoate MP (Labour, Dartford) Mr Robert Syms MP (Conservative, Poole) Dr Richard Taylor MP (Independent, Wyre Forest) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/healthcom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr David Harrison (Clerk), Adrian Jenner (Second Clerk), Laura Daniels (Committee Specialist), David Turner (Committee Specialist), Frances Allingham (Senior Committee Assistant), Julie Storey (Committee Assistant) and Gabrielle Henderson (Committee Support Assistant).
    [Show full text]
  • Inaugural One Day Conference Friday 22 January 2021
    Inaugural One Day Conference Friday 22 January 2021 Registration from 08.45 Conference 09.15 - 17.05; Drinks reception 17.05 - 18.00 ARDL is pleased to announce details of its Inaugural Professional Discipline and Regulation Conference, which will take place on Friday 22 January 2021 at the Museum of London. There is a back-up date of Friday 26 March 2021 in the event that ARDL cannot hold the conference in January. The conference will be of interest to members of ARDL practising in all aspects of professional discipline and regulation and will involve updates on key developments and interesting insights from the 'coalface'. ‘Why Regulation Still Matters in 2021’ We are delighted to confirm that The Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson, former Master of the Rolls and Justice of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, has agreed to present the opening session of the conference. 'Corporate Governance for Public Bodies and Regulators – Has Regulation Failed?' ARDL welcomes David Gomez, author of the leading healthcare regulatory law textbook "The Regulation of Healthcare Professionals: Law, Principle and Process (2nd Ed. Sweet & Maxwell)" and a well-known lawyer in the field of regulation and professional discipline, latterly as the senior lawyer at the Professional Standards Authority, to present this key address. Conference Speakers include: Jonathan Dillon, Executive Director of Fitness to Practise, Social Work England 'Why a Regulator Established in 2019 Looks a Little Different' Kenneth Hamer, Henderson Chambers 'Regulatory Case Law Update' James Stuart,
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Members
    1 Table of Contents Chancery Bar Association Committee Full Members London Midlands North South East Wales & West International Overseas Members Academic Members Index of Members 2 Chancery Bar Association Committee Chair Penelope Reed QC Vice-Chair Amanda Tipples QC Treasurer Mark West Hon. Secretary Eason Rajah QC Seminar Secretary Richard Millett QC Ordinary Members Amanda Hardy QC Rebecca Stubbs QC John Machell QC Michael Green QC Julia Beer Jonathan Davey Lyndsey de Mestre Alexander Learmonth Anna Markham Eleanor Holland Ruth Hughes Oliver Phillips London Co-Optees Andrew Twigger QC, William East, Josh Lewison, James McWilliams Regional Co-Optees Lesley Anderson QC, Hugh Jory QC, Nicola Preston, Alex Troup Website www.chba.org.uk All communications should be sent to the Administrator: Francesca Compton Chancery Bar Association Flat 46, 4 Grand Avenue Hove BN3 2LE Tel: 07791 398254 E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved; not to be reproduced without the written permission of the Chancery Bar Association (application to be made to the Chancery Bar Association). 3 Full Members This section lists the full members of the Association by Chambers, broken down into the following regions. London Chambers Midlands Chambers North Chambers South East Chambers Wales & West Chambers International Chambers 4 London Arden Chambers Tel 020 7242 4244 DX DX 29 Chancery Lane 20 Bloomsbury Square Website http://www.ardenchambers.com/ London Members James Sandham 2003 Sandham, James WC1A 2NS 36 Bedford Row Tel 020 7421 8000 DX DX 360 LDE London
    [Show full text]
  • The Bar Council Integrity
    Annual Bar Conference and Young Bar Conference 2015 Saturday 17 October 2015 Westminster Park Plaza, London Book by Friday 3 July 2015 to receive the early booking discounts The Bar Council Integrity. Excellence. Justice. Programme 09:30 - 10:30 This year’s theme has been developed to ecompass issues that are both current and important. The Advocate: Our role in the The opening keynote session will set the tone to ensure a full day of balance between state and sessions focussing and addressing the increasing pressures facing the Programme Programme citizen. Bar due to economic or other political pressures, as well as a widening of Welcome alternative services available to the public. Kama Melly, Conference Chairman, Park Square The Keynote Address will ensure the importance of maintaining ‘The Barristers Advocate’ as the focus in all discussions, with regards to what the Chairman’s Address elements of change or restrictions mean for members of the Bar and Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar how they can be used as an advantage or overcome to ensure continual Council success. Keynote Address Baroness Helena Kennedy of the Shaws QC 09:30 - 10:30 The bringing together of the two Conferences provides a fantastic opportunity for the Young Bar to take part in a day that provides Young Bar Opening Keynote learning opportunities from many sectors. However, the day is also Welcome about addressing areas of concern or potential areas of development that Daniel Sternberg, 9-12 Bell Yard, Young Bar are specific for the Young Bar. Committee Chairman Sir Terence Etherton was called to the Bar in 1974, Grays Inn.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIVACY NOTICE for MENTORING SCHEME 1. One Essex Court, Brick
    PRIVACY NOTICE FOR MENTORING SCHEME 1. One Essex Court, Brick Court Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Essex Court Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers and 3VB (“Chambers”) are data controllers for the purposes of processing mentoring scheme applicants’ data. 2. This policy applies in relation to any application for the mentoring scheme at the participating Chambers and during the course of a mentorship. The General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) requires us to provide this notice to you. COLLECTION OF PERSONAL DATA 3. Personal data processed and collected by us includes: a. personal data collected during the application process or during the course of the mentoring relationship, or from any further correspondence by phone, email or otherwise; b. personal data collected by and on behalf of the participating Chambers to enable us to process payments to mentees; c. personal data received via the centralized application process; and d. personal data collected from third parties in the course of taking references in support of an application. We will seek information from third parties with your consent only. 4. The personal data collected includes any personal details including name, address, contact details, education and training, employment, right to work in the UK and financial information where relevant. 5. Sensitive personal data collected with your consent may include information about medical or health conditions, including whether or not you have a disability for which Chambers needs to make reasonable adjustments; and information about your racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, trade union membership, sex life and sexual orientation and religion or philosophical belief. WHY WE PROCESS PERSONAL DATA 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Christopher Bathurst Prize 2021
    THE CHRISTOPHER BATHURST PRIZE 2021 Submission Deadline: 31 August 2021 1 ABOUT THE PRIZE Christopher Bathurst QC (1934-2009) was a member of Fountain Court Chambers and a leading practitioner at the Commercial Bar in London who developed a substantial practice in Southeast Asia, particularly Singapore. He was regarded by many practitioners in Singapore not just as a formidable advocate and adviser but also as a friend and mentor. His cases include the leading decision of Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 and after that he developed a substantial Singaporean arbitration practice. As Viscount Bledisloe, Christopher was an elected hereditary peer, and a popular and energetic cross-bench member of the House of Lords. This Prize seeks to honour his memory. Sponsored by Fountain Court Chambers. 2 THE CHRISTOPHER BATHURST PRIZE QUESTION INSTRUCTIONS TO ADVISE IN WRITING The Singapore Court of Appeal in Charles Lim Teng Siang v Hong Choon Hau [2021] SGCA 43 at [38] identified three schools of thought as to the legal effect of a “no oral modification” clause in a contract:1 the “Sumption approach”, the “Briggs approach” and the “Comfort Management approach”. Which approach is to be preferred, and why? 1 For example, a clause which provides that no variation, supplement, deletion or replacement of or from this Agreement or any of its terms shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by or on behalf of each party 3 PRIZE RULES Eligibility The Competition is open to: a) every Full-time student enrolled in the LL.B. or LL.M. or PhD programme at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law; b) every Full-time student enrolled in the LL.B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commercial Litigation Summit 2019
    THE COMMERCIAL LITIGATION SUMMIT 2019 1 JULY 2019 C THE BREWERY, LONDON From the publishers of 2 In litigation, the stakes are high. Relevant data and statistical analysis adds insight and aids decision-making. It doesn’t change the stakes, but it helps with the percentages. Solomonic is based on a simple premise. The right data, rigorously analysed, enhances the quality of decision-making. Aggregated over the lifetime of a case, that Relevant data and statistical analysis adds insight produces a powerful incremental advantage, allowing and aids decision-making. It doesn’t change the litigators to do a better job and get better results. stakes, but it helps with the percentages. In litigation, Don’t just predict outcomes. Solomonic is based on a simple premise. the stakes Improve them. The right data, rigorously analysed, enhances the quality of decision-making. Aggregated over the lifetime of a case,are that high. +44+44 (0)20 (0)20 7205 72052924 2924 produces a powerful incremental advantage, allowing [email protected]@Solomonic.co.uk litigators to do a better job and get better results. www.Solomonic.co.ukwww.Solomonic.co.uk Don’t just predict outcomes. Improve them. From the publishers of KEYNOTE SPONSOR PANEL SPONSORS NETWORKING SPONSOR ASSOCIATE SPONSORS 1 COMMERCIAL LITIGATION SUMMIT 2019 International Arbitration Events The Legal 500 will be hosting a series of Commercial Arbitration Summits across the globe, bringing together GCs and senior in-house lawyers, along with leading practitioners and thought leaders, to discuss the key trends in one of the most strategic practice areas in global law.
    [Show full text]
  • Christine Artero | Fountain Court Chambers
    LONDON & SINGAPORE Christine Artero Christine is an independent arbitrator, Door Tenant of Fountain Court Chambers (London and Singapore), and full-time Resident at The Arbitration Chambers (Singapore). A dual-qualified lawyer, she is educated in both the civil law and the common law traditions, and she is admitted to the Paris Bar and as a solicitor in England and Wales. Christine has extensive experience in international arbitration, and a substantial practice in Asia and in Europe. Her experience spans a broad range of commercial disputes and includes serving as arbitrator in arbitrations under the rules of all major arbitral institutions. Christine has also acted as sole arbitrator in expedited proceedings. Prior to launching her career as independent arbitrator, Christine practised with Shearman & Sterling in London and worked at the LCIA where she oversaw the administration of over 200 arbitrations. In 2014, Christine joined The Arbitration Chambers in Singapore and was appointed Tribunal Secretary to over 80 arbitral tribunals. Christine teaches arbitration at the University of Toulouse 1 and regularly lectures at other leading institutions. She also regularly speaks at international arbitration conferences and webinars. RECOMMENDATIONS “Christine Artero wins widespread recommendations from market sources who commend her impressive work as arbitrator under a wide range of institutional rules.” Who’s Who Legal Arbitration – Future Leaders 2020 “Christine is described as ‘THE rising star in Singapore among arbitrators’ for her expertise in cases involving both common and civil law traditions as well as in commercial disputes across a range of industries.” Who’s Who Legal Arbitration – Future Leaders 2019 EXPERIENCE Presiding arbitrator in an HKIAC arbitration seated in Hong Kong, between Austrian and Lebanese nationals and a Hong Kong company in relation to a contract for the sale of shares governed by Hong Kong law.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Years of Women in Law
    28TH NOVEMBER 2019 100 Years of Women in Law Professor Jo Delahunty QC The Bar in 2020 – Women and the Bar: A Sticky Floor and the Glass Ceiling and Widening the Gender Debate: Where is the Bar in terms of Ethnicity, Sexuality, Disability, and Social Mobility? Introduction In October 2017 I delivered a lecture on the position of women at the Bar, looking at our profession’s ability to attract, retain and elevate female entrants as their skills warranted. As I then made plain: I had approached the lecture fully anticipating I would ultimately be celebrating the achievements of women at the Bar. I was misguided. I concluded that able women had been failed by their profession. The Bar leaked talent from an entry base line of equality. While the ratio of women to men at both pupillage and tenancy was 51% to 49%, (women slightly in the ascendancy) by 5 years call women comprised 45% of the self- employed Bar and by 15 years+ call this had dived to 29 %. Women are more likely to leave the profession if they had experienced discrimination or harassment, if they were BAME, or if they have primary caring responsibilities for children. The loss of senior junior women barristers reduced the pool from which silk applicants are drawn. Men made up 87% of all self-employed QCs.1 Gender composition of the Bar by length of Call (Source: Bar Standards Board data, 1 December 2016) Since the ranks of senior judiciary are largely drawn from the QC coterie, that silk pool, drained of female talent, had a knock-on effect in terms of representation of women in the judiciary.
    [Show full text]
  • Winners List Winners List
    AI LEGAL AWARDS 2011 AI LEGAL AWARDS 2011 WINNERS LIST WINNERS LIST Argentina Germany Malta Thailand Brons & Salas Corporate Tax Law Firm of the Year Gaßner, Groth, Siederer & Coll Public Sector Firm of the Year Camilleri Preziosi Dispute Resolution Law Firm of the Year Thanathip & Partners M&A Law Firm of the Year Mitrani Caballero Rosso Alba Francia Ojam & Patents Law Firm of the Year Meyer Koering Franchise Law Firm of the Year The Cayman Islands Ruiz Moreno Abogados GSK Stockmann + Kollegen Investment Funds Law Firm of the Year Mauritius Offshore Law Firm of the Year Conyers Dill & Pearman M&A Law Firm of the Year Jonas Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH Trade Marks Law Firm of the Year Uteem Chambers Australia Corporate Law Firm of the Year Solomon Harris Banking & Finance Law Firm of the Year Buntscheck Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH EU Law Firm of the Year Erriah Chambers Colin Biggers & Paisley Insurance and Reinsurance Law Firm of the Solomon Harris Capital Markets Law Firm of the Year Heussen Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH Property Law Firm of the Year Year Mexico Appleby Corporate Law Firm of the Year Avocado rechtsanwälte Administrative & Public Law Firm of the Year Regulatory Communications Law Firm of the Henry Davis York Capital Markets Law Firm of the Year Page 3 Casares Castelazo Frías y Zárate Graef Rechtsanwälte Entertainment Law Firm of the Year Year The Czech Republic Minter Ellison Competition Law Firm of the Year Graf von Westphalen Real Estate Law Firm of the Year Structured Finance Law Firm of the Year bpv Braun Partners Banking and Finance Law Firm of the Year Minter Ellison Dispute Resolution Law Firm of the Year Nader, Hayaux & Goebel Raue LLP Energy Regulation Law Firm of the Year CMS Cameron McKenna v.o.s.
    [Show full text]
  • Patricia Robertson | Fountain Court Chambers
    LONDON & SINGAPORE Patricia Robertson QC Call Date: 1988 | Silk Date: 2006 Patricia regularly has cases listed amongst The Lawyer’s ’Top 20 Cases’ and has previously been named in The Lawyer’s “Hot 100”. In 2019, she was awarded Professional Discipline Silk of the Year by Chambers UK, awarded “Commended” for Barrister of the Year by The Lawyer and shortlisted for Litigation Team of the Year by Legal Business. She continues to garner directory recommendations across Banking & Finance, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Financial Services, Professional Discipline and Professional Negligence. Patricia is very familiar with managing large scale commercial litigation and regulatory investigations, with a focus on the financial and legal sectors. Patricia relishes advocacy in all forms, whether addressing the Supreme Court or the decision-maker across the table at a mediation, and believes that practising across a number of related fields helps to keep advocacy skills sharp and legal thinking flexible. Patricia is accredited as a mediator and accepts arbitration appointments (see her arbitrator specific profile here). She was Vice Chair of the Bar Standards Board 2013-2015. She was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2016. She is a member of the Abu Dhabi Global Markets Appeal Panel and of an expert panel advising the Astana International Financial Centre on regulatory matters. Patricia has published extensively on topics connected with financial and legal services (see publications, below, for further details). When not crafting legal arguments for a living, Patricia is teaching herself to weave and manages a plant nursery specialising in irises, on a hillside in Umbria. Her recent highlights include: Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors : Defending claims brought by the Danish tax authorities against multiple defendants relating to an alleged fraudulent scheme to reclaim £1.5 billion in withholding tax (ongoing).
    [Show full text]
  • The Student's Guide to the Leading Law Firms And
    2021 The student’s guide to the leading law firms and sets in the UK e-Edition chambers-student.com Connect with us on cbaK Travers Smith is everything you could want from a law firm. First-rate training and market-leading work alongside some of the City’s finest lawyers. Prestigious clients. The opportunity to progress. And all in a supportive, non-hierarchical and inclusive environment. www.traverssmith.com 10 Snow Hill, London EC1A 2AL +44 (0) 20 7295 3000 Chambers Reports Atkin Chambers p.662 Littleton Chambers p.740 2 Bedford Row p.664 Maitland Chambers p.744 Blackstone Chambers p.668 Matrix Chambers p.748 Brick Court Chambers p.672 Monckton Chambers p.752 Cloisters Chambers p.676 4 New Square p.754 Crown Office Chambers p.680 No5 Barristers’ Chambers p.758 Devereux p.683 XXIV Old Buildings p.761 Erskine Chambers p.687 Outer Temple Chambers p.764 One Essex Court p.691 4 Pump Court p.768 5 Essex Court p.694 Pump Court Tax Chambers p.772 Essex Court Chambers p.696 Quadrant Chambers p.776 Falcon Chambers p.700 Queen Elizabeth Building QEB p.780 Farrar’s Building p.703 Radcliffe Chambers p.783 Fountain Court Chambers p.707 Serle Court p.786 Francis Taylor Building p.711 South Square p.790 Hailsham Chambers p.714 St Philips Chambers p.794 1 Hare Court p.718 4 Stone Buildings p.797 Henderson Chambers p.721 Tanfield Chambers p.801 11KBW p.724 2 Temple Gardens p.804 Keating Chambers p.728 3 Verulam Buildings p.808 7 King’s Bench Walk p.732 Wilberforce Chambers p.812 Landmark Chambers p.736 chambersstudent.co.uk Chambers Reports Chambers Reports Choosing where to apply for pupillage is hard.
    [Show full text]