‘Chairman: Michael Ashe QC;

Bob Penn, Allen & Overy, on Banking resolutioin: solving too big to fail
Professor Andrew Haynes, University of Wolverhampton; Visiting Professor of Law, University of Macau, China; Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, on the Banking Reform Act 2013
Professor Rosa Lastra, Queen Mary, University of London on Is the system more resilient following reforms at national, European and international level?
Richard Barfield, KPMG, on Regulatory change – the firms perspective
Nicholas Walmsley, (TBC), Deutschebank: lunchtime speech on In house training issues caused by developments in regulation
Nick Andrews, MPAC, on The challenge for banks
Dr Costanza Russo, Queen Mary, University of London, on The efficacy of banking union through the lenses of co-operation mechanisms
Peter Casey, former Head of Islamic Finance, Dubai Financial Services Authority, on Regulatory change: the impact on Islamic banking
Professor Peter Cartwright, University of Nottingham, on Consumer redress and financial services’

Date: 16th September 2014, 9.15-5.00pm

Location: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5DR

Charge: See website for details

More information can be found here.

‘Jonathan Montgomery’s inaugural lecture as Professor of Health Care Law argues that the ‘patient’ is no longer the main concept that defines the subject and organises its doctrines. His earlier work suggested that focus on the doctor-patient relationship had blinded commentators to important issues and allowed only a partial account of the roles of the law. Recent case law confirms that other paradigms are becoming important. The use of human rights arguments makes the immediate health care context less relevant. This feature is amplified by increasingly common permission for ’intervenors’ to make submissions showing how individual cases are linked to wider issues. This in turn is an example of a wider trend – the increasing use of health care litigation by groups and corporate bodies – which further dilutes the role of the ‘patient’ as an organising concept for the law. In the face of these developments, many of the reasons for traditional judicial protection of clinical freedom in English health care law ebb away. It is therefore not surprising that the courts are seeking to redefine their roles in regulating health care. If the patient is no longer the central concern of health care law, then it is appropriate that judges are less patient with the idea that there might be lowered scrutiny for health professional s compared to those working in other areas.’

Date: 30th October 2014, 6.00-7.00pm

Location: UCL Law Faculty, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG

Charge: Free, registration required

More information can be found here.

‘This lecture addresses a key question in debates around judicial diversity: what evidence is there that a more diverse judiciary will make a difference to substantive decision-making? The lecture will begin by outlining the range of arguments for a more diverse judiciary, which include but are not confined to making a difference to substantive decision-making. It will then turn to consider the considerable evidence which now exists both to refute and to support the existence of substantive differences in decision-making following the appointment of women and others from non-traditional backgrounds to the judiciary. On the basis of this evidence, it will draw conclusions as to the kinds of differences in decision-making which might be expected, and the circumstances under which different approaches to decision-making are likely to flourish.’

Date: 23rd October 2014, 6.00-7.00pm

Location: UCL Law Faculty, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG

Charge: Free, registration required

More information can be found here.