​​A notorious property tycoon who disappeared from UK public life for ​a decade ​after being found responsible for the murder of a business rival is to re-surface​ in a London court.​​

Nicholas van Hoogstraten ​– described variously as Britain's nastiest landlord, an “emissary of Beelzebub” and Mugabe’s British henchman – will return to court next week to answer a claim for several million pounds.

The Times reports that the hearing is part of the settling of an old score by the family of his one-time business rival, Mohammed Raja, whose murder a High Court judge found van Hoogstraten had organised, despite being cleared in the criminal courts.

​​The finding was central to a £6 million civil action brought against the property tycoon by Raja’s widow, Starbibi Raja, who will seek to enforce an order in her favour next week in the High Court​. The law firm acting for Mrs Raja, Sabeers Stone Green, in London, said: "The family feel that this is about obtaining justice ​– that is why they are pursuing the judgment that was found in their favour."

Lawyers for Mrs Raja said that the claim had taken a long time to pursue for many reasons, but one was that van Hoogstraten had been out of the country – he now lives in Zimbabwe. However, the tycoon had responded through solicitors to the move to enforce the judgment and appeared in person at a preliminary hearing earlier this year.

Mr Raja, 62, was suing van Hoogstraten over a business deal at the time of his death. He was stabbed and shot after answering the doorbell at his home in south London, on July 2, 1999. His killers, Robert Knapp and David Croke – who were found by the High Court to be the tycoon's henchmen – were given life sentences for murder.

Mr van Hoogstraten was sentenced to ten years at the Old Bailey in 2002 for manslaughter, but his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal and he was released from jail. The family brought a civil claim in 2005 but soon after van Hoogstraten returned to Zimbabwe, a country with which he has always had close links.

Regulators have launched a crackdown on law firms touting for business outside police stations, courts and on residential estates, the professional watchdog announced on Friday.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority pointed to a rising tide of touting, which is banned by professional conduct rules.

According to the authority, touts working for solicitors’ firms are increasingly “loitering” near magistrates’ courts, where alleged offenders are brought for first appearances after arrest. They are also accused of waiting outside police stations in an attempt to poach clients of other lawyers by offering financial inducements.

Regulators also accuse law firms of paying “finders” to trawl around local residential estates to pitch the lawyers’ services.

"Firms working in this way not only undermine the rule of law,” said Crispin Passmore, a director at the SRA, “they also impede the public's access to high-quality legal advice. This is especially concerning because those involved in criminal cases could be very vulnerable."

Solicitors and their agents are banned by the profession’s code of conduct from randomly approaching potential clients; cold calling is strictly banned. According to the regulator, marketing strategies “should be non-intrusive”.

Passmore said that the Law Society, which represents some 130,000 practising solicitors in England and Wales, was working with the authority to stamp out unethical practices.

"We would encourage solicitors and firms to report any concerns about touting quickly and clearly,” he said.”Often a small piece of information can complete a wider picture for us and we can then better target our efforts to tackle this problem."

A barrister has been thrown out of the profession for firing off a barrage of “seriously offensive” racist tweets in which he attacked Jews, Muslims and “chavs”.

A disciplinary tribunal found that Ian Robert Millard posted a series of seven vitriolic and racially abusive tweets in November 2014. In all the tweets Millard referred to himself as a barrister before denigrating various groups, as well as attacking two former government ministers.

In one tweet, the lawyer referred to Michael Gove, the former education secretary and lord chancellor, as a “pro-Jew expenses cheat”.

Millard also lashed out at Grant Shapps, the former minister for international development and ex-chairman of the Conservative Party. The barrister tweeted: “A million British people forced to use foodbanks and all the Jew Shapps can say is to parrot a list of hackneyed propaganda phrases.”

In another posting, Millard praised Dominic Grieve, QC, the former attorney-general, while at the same time tweeting racial abuse. He said Grieve reminded him “of the days when many/most Conservative MPs were English gentlemen, not Jews or yobs”.

Millard, who was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1991, stopped practising as a barrister in 2007, although he remained a member of the profession. The five-strong disciplinary tribunal sitting on Thursday found that the barrister’s behaviour on social media was “seriously offensive and was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in Mr Millard or in the profession”.

In disbarring Millard, the tribunal found that his social media behaviour had breached core duty 5 of the Bar Standards Board handbook, which stipulates that barristers “must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”.

The Bar regulator confirmed that before leaving practice at the Bar Millard had been with BarristerWeb, an online set of chambers. He also briefly practised at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter.

Rulings in London employment tribunals rarely rock the global economy, but the Uber case decision on Friday will have “sent shivers down the spines of technology businesses” everywhere, lawyers forecast.

The California company that operates the taxi service app has already announced it will appeal against the judgment – and not without reason, say employment law specialists. “This outcome is bad news for Uber and is likely to have significant implications for other operators in the fast-growing gig economy,” said Alex Bearman, a partner at Russell-Cooke.

If the ruling stood, he said, Uber faced having to fund costly benefits for its drivers such as holiday pay, sick pay and pension contributions.

Sean Nesbitt, a partner at London and international law firm Taylor Wessing, predicted that the ruling could cost Uber nearly £14 million annually in statutory holiday pay – about ten times the company’s post-tax profit. Costs for pensions and sick pay would be additional.

Nesbitt also predicted the wider effects of the ruling would be significant, with some 100,000 UK workers in related industries in similarly positions as Uber drivers. There were also suggestions that Uber’s post-ruling headaches would not be restricted to holiday and sick pay and pensions contributions – but that the taxman could soon put an oar in.

“HMRC will now expect PAYE deductions to be made from payments to the drivers,” said Benedict Gorner, a partner at Gateley.

Easily the most pleased set of lawyers on Friday evening was at Leigh Day, the London firm that acted for the two named drivers in the test cases. “This judgment acknowledges the central contribution that Uber’s drivers have made to Uber’s success by confirming that its drivers are not self-employed but that they work for Uber as part of the company’s business,” Nigel Mackay, a lawyer with the firm, said.

“Uber drivers often work very long hours just to earn enough to cover their basic living costs. It is the work carried out by these drivers that has allowed Uber to become the multibillion-dollar global corporation it is.”

On the losing side, reported The Lawyer magazine, acting for Uber was transatlantic law firm DLA Piper.

• Uber tells its drivers: ruling doesn't apply to you -- The Times
  

A High Court judge has ruled that the BBC was justified in describing a south London imam as an extremist hate-preacher as he dismissed a defamation claim against the broadcaster.

Shakeel Begg, the chief Imam at the Lewisham Islamic Centre, who has worked closely with the local police, had claimed that he had been defamed by Sunday Politics, the BBC programme.

However, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave ruled on Friday that Begg was an extremist speaker who espoused extremist Islamic positions. The judge also found that Begg had recently promoted religious violence by telling Muslims that violent acts in support of Islam would constitute an individual’s “greatest deed”.

The BBC would have been liable for substantial damages and significant costs if the ruling had gone in Begg’s favour. Leading the defence team for the corporation was Andrew Caldecott, QC, of One Brick Court Chambers in the Temple; he was instructed by the BBC’s in-house legal team.

Appearing for Begg was William Bennett, a senior-junior defamation specialist barrister at 5RB chambers in Gray’s Inn; he was instructed by Rahman Lowe, a predominantly employment law specialist firm in London’s Canary Wharf.

Solicitor regulator hit with costs order for bringing “improper” prosecution – Legal Futures

Fast-track would boost diversity on bench, says top solicitor judge – Law Gazette

FBI director’s ‘partisan actions’ may violate federal law, claims top US senator – Wall Street Journal