The Legal 500 > Pinsent Masons LLP > Bristol, ENGLAND

Pinsent Masons LLP

33-35 QUEEN SQUARE, BRISTOL, BS1 4LU, ENGLAND

Tel:: Work 0117 924 5678
Fax:: Fax 0117 924 6699
DX:: 78154 BRISTOL

Web:: www.pinsentmasons.com
Email:

Singapore, Shanghai, Paris, Munich, Manchester M3, Manchester M3 and 16 more

South West : Overview

Among notable developments at law firms, Pinsent Masons LLP closed its Bristol office, while the leading members of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP’s professional negligence team moved over to RPC, giving the latter a presence in the region. Simmons & Simmons LLP has announced plans to open a Bristol office in the autumn of 2012.

Further information on Pinsent Masons LLP

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about Pinsent Masons LLP in other jurisdictions.

United Arab Emirates

Offices in Dubai

China

Offices in Shanghai and Beijing

Hong Kong

Offices in Hong Kong

India

London

Offices in London EC2A, London EC1Y, and London EC4M

Northern Ireland

Offices in Belfast

North West

Offices in Manchester M3 and Manchester M3

Philippines

Scotland

Offices in Aberdeen, Glasgow G2, Edinburgh EH3, Glasgow G2, and Edinburgh EH3

Singapore

Offices in Singapore

West Midlands

Offices in Birmingham

Yorkshire and the Humber

Offices in Leeds

Search News and Articles

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to

Getting the breaks

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Falcon Chambers
Product liability and dietary supplements

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
The calm before  the storm: are  you prepared for  a dawn raid?

WilmerHale currently authors the Fraud and Corporate Crime section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- WilmerHale
International shipment of waste: transporters beware

Burges Salmon LLP currently authors the Environment and Energy section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here

- Burges Salmon LLP
Revisiting Bartoline

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Macfarlanes
Rent in administration proceedings: a headache for landlords

Druces currently authors the Insolvency and corporate restructuring section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Druces
It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP currently authors the EU & Competition section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP
Court of Appeal provides useful guidance on the  test for remoteness  of damages for  breach o

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP currently authors the Contract section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
Unsafe products:  identifying serious risks and notifying the relevant authorities

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . In the event that a safety problem is identified with one of your products, you will need to undertake a risk assessment to comply with the General Product Safety Directive.

- Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
Supreme Court provides guidance  on forum conveniens and piercing the corporate veil 

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . This article considers the Supreme Court decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & or s [2013]. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the case is that it casts doubt on the notion that the Court has the power to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court also held that, even if the power to pierce the corporate veil does exist, it does not enable a claimant to hold parties that control a company jointly and severally liable under contracts entered into by that company.  

- Macfarlanes