Book recommendation: The Verdict by Nick Stone

Terry Flynt is a struggling legal clerk, desperately trying to get promoted. And then he is given the biggest opportunity of his career: to help defend a millionaire accused of murdering a woman in his hotel suite. The only problem is that the accused man, Vernon James, turns out to be not only someone he knows, but someone he loathes. This case could potentially make Terry’s career, but how can he defend a former friend who betrayed him so badly? With the trial date looming, Terry delves deeper into Vernon’s life and is forced to confront secrets from their shared past that could have devastating consequences for them both. For years he has wanted to witness Vernon’s downfall, but with so much at stake, how can Terry be sure that he is guilty? And what choices must he make to ensure that justice is done? Packed with twists, turns and an unforgettable trial scene, The Verdict is the most page-turning British legal thriller in many years.

Available from Amazon.

Other posts by

April 23, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

Re B (Secure Accommodation; Inherent Jurisdiction) (No 1) [2013] EWHC 4654 (Fam)

The court considered the question of jurisdiction in relation to a Secure Accommodation orders made in respect of a 17 year old girl as she was not provided with accommodation pursuant to s.20 or a looked after child. It was held that the court could under the inherent jurisdiction order the detention of a minor in secure accommodation.

Other posts by

April 22, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

The Lowdown On Antitrust Cases

Consideration was given for the publishing of this article.

You (along with everyone else attached to the legal world) want to know the ins and outs of antitrust?

The problem is that there is a whole lot of misinformation out there that makes it really hard for us to identify how antitrust cases really work.

Let’s turn down the hype and shed light on the process behind antitrust cases in this simple guide.

The legal definition

An antitrust case is a legal action against parties charged with limiting free competition in the market.

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits creation of monopolies: an attempt to monopolize a particular industry, a conspiracy by two or more companies to unreasonably limit market competition; and price fixing. Other areas may include allocation of customers or territories and boycotts as a monopoly.

A case is filed against parties involved in any of these activities. At the core, the goal behind antitrust case filings is maximization of consumer welfare.

Who is involved?

Antitrust cases can involve several different parties (private and federal), and each case includes an area of anti-trust law breached, a brief discussion of the arguments of the claimant and defendant and the court decision. Here are a few recent examples of antitrust cases:


The U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust case against Apple and five other publishers (Macmillan, Penguin and Simon, Hachette, HarperCollins & Schuster) – claiming they colluded in e-book prices and sales models. The succession would eliminate the agency model for e-books, by barring agreements between publisher defendants and e-book retailers restricting, limiting, or impeding the retailer’s ability to alter, or set the retail price of e-books.


NCAA came under antitrust fire in a lawsuit claiming student-athletes were unlawfully capped at scholarships. The aim is to have a court prohibition of the restrictions collectively imposed by the NCAA and five member conferences on what the case claimants view as the compensation of college-level athletes, in athletic scholarships. It’s a big deal as it involves college athletes striving for the right to become free agents.

Renowned antitrust lawyers

The U.S. antitrust law has come a long way since the 1980s. And over the decades, the following antitrust lawyers have successfully achieved antitrust case milestones over the years:

Michael D. Hausfeld

Michael Hausfeld has represented classes and individuals in cases pertaining to monopolization, exclusive dealing, tying arrangements and price fixing. He is member on the ABA Antitrust Section’s Transition Taskforce, which has counseled President Obama. The New York Times referred to him as one of America’s most prominent antitrust lawyers.

Dan Glickman on his friendship with Michael Hausfeld mentions he was always on the side of the person who was vulnerable, and as a result, he has been involved in historic cases since graduation. He represented native Alaskans whose lives were affected by Exxon Valdez oil spill, and more recently, retired NFL players left out in negotiations.

Janet L. McDavid

Janet McDavid has a particular focus in government litigation and antitrust policy cases. She has been an antitrust transition advisor to the Bush, Clinton and Obama Administrations. The Chambers, USA, has noted praise for her strong government ties.

Jan also frequently addresses on antitrust keynotes around the globe. Further, she served as counsel for American Express in U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation against MasterCard and Visa, and Mobil in its Exxon merger.

The future of antitrust cases

The current trends portray that the number of antitrust cases filed each year will rise in the future as lawyers and the Antitrust Division make efforts for increasing consumer welfare and ensuring a sound economic policy.

Other posts by

April 22, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including The Queen’s Counsel Lawyer’s Omnibus. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at ÂŁ120 for originals and ÂŁ40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom  (infoatqccartoondotcom)  .

Other posts by

April 21, 2014   Posted in: Cartoons  Comments Closed

Weekend video: An Interview with John Grisham about Sycamore Row

Other posts by

April 19, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

Another Challenge to the Ambit and Operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Regina -v- Fields and Others [2014] 2 WLR 233

This appeal raises two main points which would, if the Appellants’ arguments are right, effect a profound change in the general understanding hitherto of the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 vis-a-vis confiscation orders. What is said is that such change is required in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regina -v- Waya [2013] 1 AC 294.

The two points were summarised by the Court of Appeal in the following way:

1. Where two or more conspirators have been adjudged to have been co-principal conspirators who have jointly obtained the benefit of the proceeds of the conspiracy, is the benefit obtained by each of them, for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be valued in a sum equalling the full amount of the proceeds of the conspiracy or is the value of the benefit to be attributed to them in rateable shares?

2. If the benefit is properly assessed in the whole amount with regard to each of them and assuming that each has realisable assets matching or exceeding the benefit, is the amount of the confiscation order to be apportioned between them in each case rateably in order to avoid a disproportionate outcome?

In dismissing the appeal in its entirety Davis LJ held that in a case of co-principal conspirators adjudged to have obtained the benefit jointly, there can be no apportionment as between them of that benefit. The value of the benefit is to be assessed as the whole amount with regard to each conspirator. If the confiscation order were to be apportioned at this stage, there would be a real risk that ultimately the order would not be satisfied in full. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires the focus of attention to be on depriving each Defendant of the proceeds of his crime.

Other posts by

April 15, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

Book recommendation: RTA Allegations of Fraud in a post-Jackson Era: the Handbook by Andrew Mckie

A practical, concise and easy to read handbook dealing with allegations of fraud in personal injury RTA cases. From LVI to alleged staged accidents, this book covers all the main fraud topics including relevant cases, law and practical guidance that can be used by both junior and more senior fee earners in day-to-day practice in this complex and evolving area of law. Andrew Mckie is a Barrister at Clerksroom Manchester specialising in claimant and defendant personal injury, with a particular interest in cases involving alleged fraud and credit hire. He was called to the Bar in 2011 and before that was an Associate Solicitor and Solicitor Advocate. Before qualifying as a barrister, Andrew had over six years of advocacy experience as a Solicitor. He worked for a number of leading firms and dealt with both RTA fraud and credit hire and worked for both claimant and defendant firms. Most recently, he was the Head of Litigation and In-House Solicitor Advocate at a claimant personal injury and credit hire firm.

Available from Amazon.

Other posts by

April 14, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including The Queen’s Counsel Lawyer’s Omnibus. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at ÂŁ120 for originals and ÂŁ40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom  (infoatqccartoondotcom)  .

Other posts by

April 14, 2014   Posted in: Cartoons  Comments Closed

Weekend video: Pale Blue Dot – Carl Sagan [Original]

Other posts by

April 12, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed

West v Ian Finlay & Associates (a firm) [2014] EWCA Civ 316

This Court of Appeal case concerns whether a net contribution clause in a construction contract which stated that the architect’s liability for loss or damage was to be limited to the amount it was reasonable to pay having regard to “the contractual responsibilities of other consultants, contractors and specialists appointed by [the Wests]” limited the architect’s liability and whether it was valid and binding under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The Judge had held that the clause did not limit the architect’s liability where the other entity was a main contractor appointed by the architect (as opposed to directly by the Wests). The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the architect. It held that the plain meaning of the clause was that the architect’s liability was limited when there was another contractor involved in the works. The Court further held that the clause did not tilt the balance of the parties’ rights and obligations significantly in the architect’s favour, and was not contrary to the duty of good faith, and so the West’s reliance on the 1999 Regulations was rejected. The Court of Appeal also held that the clause was reasonable under the 1977 Act.

Other posts by

April 8, 2014   Posted in: News  Comments Closed