Founded in 1921, Brick Court Chambers is one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the UK. We have a very strong reputation in Commercial, Competition, International/EU and Public Law. In addition to providing specialist expertise in each of those areas of law, we are uniquely placed to handle cases raising issues in more than one field. We have over 100 members who practise full-time, including 52 KCs. We have links in many common law jurisdictions with distinguished door tenants and academics.
Members of chambers are independent and self-employed with a wide diversity of skills and practices, but the Brick Court ethos is about providing a service of the very highest quality. We pride ourselves not only on excellence in advocacy and advisory work but on being accessible, user friendly and team players.
Пікірлер
If and when two or more parties require to solve an issue, any issue through arbitration consequently remaining out of court, a way will always be found and used, be such a way a direct or duplicate of cultural norms, traditions, costumes, religion, or law acts. If and when two parties require to solve an issue, any issue according to a set, or sets of rules, such rule or rules will be the very limits of the arbitration. A general attorney type of structure before any commencement of any such forms of arbitration might increase the ability of each instance. Be in regards to the court, in regards to the parties, in regards to the costs, in regards to the good or bad reputation of each, enabling a country and private firms to offer and acquire the best in regards to costs, effectiveness, efficiency, and reputation. Having undertaken such a process and a court structure is fallowed after all, then a court will be at a better position in order to assess the case, is an opinion which already has been expressed amongst some of the best practitioner's in arbitration. It so, because it avoids any situations where a party usess a state of arbitration (which in technical terms is a literal existence) in order to gain an advantage later to be used in a court, any court. Including the very arbitration structure itself. Maybe a very good option is to put forward any arbitration as a product, a completely private product (including the whole process it involves) which is available through as a replica of a judicial system, this means such a product can be regulated, especially if and when being so it means actual law applies to it. In doing so the process avoids one of the most fundamental issues of arbitration, which is all arbitrations are nullified simply by and of the existence of that which supposedly gives rise to any arbitration, that being always a contract, the contract. The existence of a contract and the corresponding contract law applicable to it, makes any arbitration nullified as of its start. Whereas a product, a private law product is from its Inception legally binding, but most importantly it can be always arbitrable, and in being a product enforceable by and of contract law. As a consequence the possibility for a peaceful and beneficial solution will more then likely be achieved. Always considering a solution is aimed as a requirement, desire and outcome. © E.D
So did symbol on coin for every each country change they material rate ?
His royal corrupt judges in operation kzread.info/dash/bejne/pGenrJODcbSWdLw.htmlsi=hk-XgfGjJ-m65uft
Promo SM 😌
a splendid lecture!
Thanks to everyone concerned, especially all the brave sailor's.
Was Ashby v. White (1703) ever overruled? if not then why did L. Leggett deny comp for injuria sine damno?
What is a litigation attorney in banking? in general terms
What a warm and welcome way of inviting applications…
legs tits!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can someone relate this Google v Lloyd Judgement with Dworkin's interpretive theory and what might Judge Hercules would do in such position. ? Is this case decided on Policy rather Principle? Judges hardly went betond the RULES ?
Why would someone do your homework for you? Good luck with your Jurisprudence Part A.
@@Thegrumpycoach already done bro. . .i want to have more analysis of more people like them. . . Definitly people on this thread must have indepth knowledge of the case. . .judge Hercules would have decided the cases differently. . .in the complete Judgement Lord Legatt did emphasized on Rules and Prinicples but he totally ignored the principle in 3rd Interpretive stage. . .!!! The decisison is opposite to what dworkin has presented Judges literally did the Linguistic intrepretation and the Judgement was not "Fit" as many of the citations which Lord Legatt gave in prior cases and relevent legislations he didnot considered any of them. . And ideal judge would have considered DPA 2018 art 164 as it only clarifies the meaning of Material and Non Material damage. 😘😘😘 above all what was the Prinivple motive behind legislating DPA itself. . .!!!
Enjoy the superb view with playback speed of 0.25 and enlarged display🥰 😳🔎▽👙💮🌺”15:22 27:21”😍😍😍 This is a great reward!!🥰🥰🥰
#nikkobriteramos
*This barrister woman kept stupendously rocking her chair laterally and swirling it which is unprofessional not to mention silly. No one taught her manners to seat before the panel properly?*
2 lovely ladies😁
Great.
Great
Hi gentlemen ,my family and I need your firm's assistance.My grandfather left many millions after his murder in the offshore islands namely Jersey and the IOM.I will email your office tomorrow.kind regards Jordan Durante
So interesting! Definitely subscribed with interest.
dont like delte immediatly
My question would be to data that is required to produce the results. With new crimes, ie involving AI, perhaps misuse of Lethal Autonomous Systems, accidents involving Autonomous Vehicles, how much data is enough to build up an adequate amount to produce reliable results.
Victoria is hottt
All those people telling me Frankfurt will usurp London as the financial capital of Europe: A German payment processor and financial services provider called Wirecard AG just went under. Wirecard held a banking licence. It should have been one of the most compliance laden entities in Germany. It had achieved listing scrutiny by simply taking over an existing call centre company. Allegations of accounting malpractices have trailed Wirecard AG since the early days of its incorporation on 1999. BaFIN, the German banking regulator, chose to ignore it. In 2019 the Financial Times published a series of investigations along with whistleblower complaints and internal documents. STILL BaFIN ignored the issue. Instead they investigated short-sellers for market manipulation, threw some in jail and filed criminal charges against the journalists who wrote ultimately correct articles about the company! On 25 June 2020, Wirecard filed for insolvency after revelations that €1.9 billion was "missing". The rumours and whistleblowers had been right. This holder of a banking licence had been beset by profit inflation, accounting irregularities and audit failures. BUT here is the real kick. BaFIN has a staff of only 15 and s budget of 6 million. The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) brings together under one roof the supervision of banks and financial services providers, insurance undertakings and securities trading. With 15 people. And you think Frankfurt will replace London.
Amsterdam already has.
@@mikeenwright333 No it hasnt Mike. It has picked up a very small part of the London share of the market. The biggest trades by far are the OTC interbank trades. They are in London and will stay there.
@@rosshilton Things aren't nearly as rosy as some might suggest. The City has lost $100s of billions to the continent in business and jobs. Sure, Amsterdam has an early lead in taking some business from the City, but Frankfurt and Paris will emerge as the true winners over time. Especially as London struggles to secure equivalence in the OTC market.
@@mikeenwright333 TBH Mike the world is changing. Individuals no longer use brokers to trade - they use online software trading systems. That is why London doesn’t care about Amsterdam taking the Brokerage business. It’s dying rapidly now. OTC is much different. Most of it is inter trading to reduce or spread risk, and it’s by big institutional investors, not individuals. It’s pension funds these days. I work in the banking area in Australia. Down here we have divest all wealth managment arms in the last couple of years. I worked on a lot of the deals. We sold a single asset managment arm that had $150 billion under management. Why sell? Because the market is changing. Just like individual investors (mainly created in the UK by Thatcher) are dying off, with their shareholding’s being bought up by superannuation funds, so to are those funds managment systems changing. The EU is desperate to take a dying industry - it’s almost funny. Just as Jobbers disappeared in the 80s so too will a long of asset managment operations. The future is in E banking and E trade. Brexit happened at just the right time for the City.
@@rosshilton I'm not quite sure what you mean. This isn't about the brokerage business.
fextyhackers,com can help you on any hacking service you are requesting for.
Another person has remarked on what they perceived to be brilliance on the part of the speakers. I however am quite baffled at Robert Griffiths QC's opening speech. Apart from virtually delivering zero new insights and sorely lacking any nuance, it did not address the topic of a battle for survival at all, which is astonishing given that it was the topic of the event. It is a real irony that his speech came after the one by Hilary Heilbron QC who was calling for London lawyers to not be complacent.
This was Brilliant~ thank you for expressing your concerns regarding "mediation". Even though I am in the U.S. I will be engaging in the process, very soon (divorce). I can only hope my mediator shows as much care and value, to resolve our concerns (no custody thank GOD!) as all of you have. Especially "Nick" @53:00 mark, in the bottom corner with the V-neck sweater --- he touched my heart with his concerns!!
As a new mediator i found this really helpful. I was very worried by your male, grey panel. Although to be fair you were probably more open than I thought you might be
Elders with honesty and wisdom
One has to admire the brilliance of the speakers, good luck London 🇬🇧
*focus on the content not accent*
This whole charade is a disgrace. Shame on you all.
“Supremacy. I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.” Bill of Rights [1688] www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction For any one of you to claim to be ‘constitutional experts’ and not to invoke the Bill of Rights in discussion is either disingenuous or or embarrassingly ignorant. The Bill of Rights is still current legislation and has primacy over any subsequent bill, statute or other legal instrument. It has never been revoked and is protected by every member of Parliament when taking their oath as well as the monarch who promises to act in accordance to the law as presented to William of Orange which created the ‘constitutional monarchy’; the system we still live under to this day. The Treaty of Rome and all subsequent treaties are null and void anyway. End of. Supremacy of EU law over British Law is and always was unlawful, illegal and treasonous.
18.00
How about we divide the country in 2 at spaghetti junction and set up a northern alliance. So we can govern our selves under common law ?
It's hilarious they bring up this but only when it's suits them The UK Constitution is a useless as a chocolate T pot. The London south live in an island called the M25 and believe that they are supreme to everyone else in the uk
REVOKE ARTICLE 50..
Isn’t Fascism just wonderful ?
kzread.info/dash/bejne/en6jpJqxk7OXnJs.html Must watch if you want facts on the People having the power and not Parliament. Dispelling myths on Parliamentary Sovereignty
Blind Eye Knowledge, about a party being decietful in acting, as if they are un-aware of a breach. Though the term seems frivilous, as such information, if known, may be a serious offence! Sent 3.10pm, 4.4.19., by [email protected].
The key point is, how do practitioners and other legal professionals, estimate what is a risk? Given, vicarious and other liabilities are more easier to define? But the benchmarks, are not so simple: Sent on 1.55am: 4.2.19., by [email protected]!
Fantastic sir but i was looking for the important conventions of British constitution
. 41:03 .
Can you please comment on the law now, after the SC judgment in Versloot! Thank you!
This link should help:www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/supreme-court-rules-that-a-collateral-lie-does-not-lead-to-forfeiture-of-an-insurance-claim
This video is so helpful, precise and brilliantly presented! Thank you
The point you made about the Service Levels of the lecture is well founded! Especially about Section 3 of The Insurance Act 2016. Sent: 3.01pm: 4.4.19.
Hi there.. May I ask... After studying Constitutional law during my time in the theatres of war until now, I became aware many years ago that Article.61 Magna Carta was LAWFULLY INVOKED on March 24th 2001. This was publicly announced in the Telegraph dated the same day. The Barons committee who invoked this ancient clause have not since received redress for the grievance to which the petition of Article. 61 Magna Carta 1215 was served to the Monarch, which was to not give her royal assent to the signing of the treaty of Nice (France) and therefore, I had a decision to make. Either stand under the law, together with the whole realm and the Barons, or, stand with the treasonous Monarch and her agents/Government who stripped us of our sovereignty, and handed power over us to a foreign entity. It was clear from the Heath Government that we were "shoehorned into the EU" and it was treason. However, Article. 61 MC 1215 had not been invoked, regardless of how upset anyone may have been about the situation. Therefore, I transferred my Oath from the Monarch to the Barons committee, and I STAND under law, WHICH IS A.61 MC 1215, until the Barons committee inform me and the whole realm they have received redress.. I would welcome any comments. For as I beleive and understand matters, until the Barons receive redress, and that would mean justice for the treason committed, then sadly, one may debate any and all other issues regarding constitutional law, however, please confirm in detail this not to be the case.. My kindest regards to all... Standing in Honour. With no ill will or vexation.
“I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.” Supremacy of the 1668 Bill of Rights still in effect.
the government took us into the EU illegally in the first place, so constitutionally you can argue that we're not in the EU and that it's all a charade. Constitutional change requires a referendum, but we were already in the European Community (which then became the EU) when we had the voted in 1975. The vote was 'should the UK remain a part of the EC?'. As such, it proves clearly that the government never had a mandate for taking us into the EU and therefore the European Communities Act 1972 could be repealed for being illegal.
Your 100% correct, here is the law that says your right, the bill of rights 1688/89, thank my friend.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 still stands in some instances - for example, that the Crown may not make or abrogate law without Parliamentary consent - but has been completely voided in others, for example the right of Protestants to bear arms. Those provisions that still stand, in principle, have been redefined over the centuries, sometimes extended, sometimes contracted, to such an extent that it would be foolish now to read the original Bill as law.
In till its repealed which they cant, its law my friend.www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Where it is contradicted by later legislation, such as its provision about carrying arms, it is NOT law any more.
you can have arms you just need to apply for one, as far as carrying one round town , ill have to ask the police, cant find the law that says you cant, maybe you can?.
If we don't leave, with full control of immigration, the Tories will be relegated to one place behind the Liberal Democrats.
If we don't leave, with full control of immigration, the Tories will be relegated to one place behind the Liberal Democrats.
Fuck this lot, all they are doing is procrastinating and looking for reasons to stay in. The vote was won to leave, get on with it.Typical bunch of lawyers arguing about bullshit all day long instead of getting on with what needs to be done.
There is no UK constitution because it would have to include the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Peerage, none of which are democratic institutions. Once in constitution they could never again be challenged. So there will never be a UK constitution because these non democratic institutions hold the power.
Magna carte and the bill of rights 1688/89, is parts of are constitution, and written down, please i beg you read these laws.
“I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.” Supremacy of the Bill of Rights 1668 (still in effect) www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
According to British experts on our constitution, Edward Heath taking Britain into the eu was, and still is illegal. It was also an act of treason on part of Heath as he was PM, and also the Queen who was head of state and could have vetoed Heath handing over our sovereignty to the eu, but she did nothing!
You do know, don't you, that the Queen has no constitutional ability to do anything but to act according to the advice of her ministers. Her consent to legislation that has passed Parliament is purely pro forma, and cannot be withheld. She has no input into government policy at all - even less than the average British citizen. She cannot voice any opinion on any specific policy or act of the government, in public. She has the right to be advised of events and policy. In strict privacy, she can draw attention, voice approval, encourage, and even warn - but that's it. She can do nothing in public whatsoever. Her weekly conferences with her Prime Minister are the only meetings from which never a word has leaked. Compared with them, Cabinet is a chickenwire canoe. Quite possibly - although I think it unlikely - Her Majesty was privately of the opinion that her Ministers at the time committed a most unwise act, maybe even, strictly speaking, an act of treason, when they took Britain into the EU and thus abrogated the sovereignty of Parliament in defiance of the British Constitution. Maybe so, but nobody will ever know.
read this written law my friend and then come back to us, bill of rights 1688/89, i thank you.
The people have voted and spoken ..... deal with it ....for once do what the people ask .....if they had listened to the people over the years it would not have come to this ..... its not the people fault it has come to this .... it is the ones who did not listen for decades ......
Yes but it the socialist yeah but no but yeah scenario that that will always cause the problems