- BC Legal Argues ‘Fundamental Dishonesty’ to Obtain £75,000 Costs Order: Marshall v Tom’s Cakes (Peterborough County Court [Sitting in Cambridge], 5 November 2019)
- Findings of ‘Fundamental Dishonesty’ Against Non-Attending Claimants: Wise v Hegarty & Alpha Insurance A/S (Middlesbrough County Court, 9 July 2019)
- Are Court Fees Always Recoverable? Stoney v Allianz Insurance plc (Liverpool County Court, 7 November 2019)
- Floodgates Open, as Bayer Discloses 130% Increase in Roundup Weedkiller Cancer Claims
- The ‘Robust’ Approach of the Judiciary Towards Sub-Standard Expert Evidence
- Lack of MoJ Activity and General Election Woes Put PI Reforms at Risk of Further Setback
- States of Guernsey to Introduce Mesothelioma Compensation Scheme in 2021
- Is Asbestos-Containing Beer Responsible for a 4-Fold Increase in Oesophagus Cancer Cases, in the UK?
- Blamire Awards for Future Loss of Earnings: Irani v Duchon  EWCA Civ 1846
- Guidance on Reliance on Witness Summaries in the Absence of Witness Statements: Morley (t/a Morley Estates) v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc  EWHC 2865 (Ch)
- Observing Justice by Adhering to the Civil Procedure Rules as Written: Paralel Routs Ltd v Fedotov  EWHC 2656 (Ch)
- Defra’s Molluscicide Ban Overturned by High Court – An Update
- Guernsey Minister Seeks to Fast-Track Statutory Mesothelioma Compensation Scheme
- Roberts Jackson’s Joint Administrators’ Progress Report Makes for Grim Reading
- Increased Advertising for Skin Camouflage Make-Up to Alter Complexion of Burn Injury and Scarring Claims?
- No Time To Lose Campaign Models New Occupational Diesel Fumes Resource on DEMiSt Study Findings
- 33,000 Talc Products Recalled by Johnson & Johnson After Regulator Detects Asbestos
- Should Healthcare Employers Install Ventilation Systems to Reduce ‘Surgical Smoke’ Levels?
- Researchers Publish ‘Largest’ Study Linking Occupational Cleaning Products Exposure and COPD