Search Results for

Question: Which is the odd one out? Answer: The first one; all the others were used by peers to describe the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill at its Second Reading in the House of Lords. There is no doubting the Bill’s breadth. Everyone could agree on its heterogeneity: detractors called it a “hotchpotch”, a “patchwork”,


In Boyle v Thompsons Solicitors [2012] EWHC 36 (QB) Mr Justice Coulson considered the scope of a solicitor’s duty in resolving conflicts of expert medical evidence. The claimant (“Mrs B”) claimed damages from the defendant solicitors (“the Solicitors”) for their allegedly negligent conduct of her compensation claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (“CICA”).  


  A recent decision of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in the Technology And Construction Court (“TCC”) in Webb Resolutions Ltd v JV Ltd t/a Shepherd Chartered Surveyors [2013] EWHC 509 (TCC) considers lawyers’ obligations when drawing up court orders. The Claimants were assignees of a centralised mortgage lender suing the Defendant surveyors in respect of three


  The First of April might appear a foolish day to write about the Legal Ombudsman Scheme.  It is not new, but it is steadily gaining in popularity.  Since 2007, the scheme has been administered by the Office for Legal Complaints.  This free scheme is being expanded – up to £50,000 could now be awarded


    The claimant company (“JGPL”) in John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37 provided consulting engineering services. It was engaged by Mr Gubbins, a farmer and property developer, to design a road and drainage scheme for his residential development and to obtain the necessary statutory approval by March 2007.  JGPL failed to


Judicial snipe

If you want some entertaining reading for Easter, have a look at the judgment Sir Alan Ward delivered yesterday in Wright v. Michael Wright Supplies Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ. 234.  He bemoans the increase in the number of cases conducted by litigants in person and has a pop at the politicians for withdrawing legal aid from so many.  There


Tomorrow as the last working day before April, shall mark the end of an era. Not a particularly long era. But all of fourteen years of the Civil Procedure Rules as we have known them. From the 1st April 2013, the CPR will be significantly altered for every civil litigant. Most pertinently, the Overriding Objective


  CPR 3.9 ‘Relief from Sanctions’ is being entirely reformed. From the 1st April 2013, gone will be the checklist which is to be replaced by a much broader discretion as to whether to grant relief, with the judge specifically referred to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently, at proportionate cost, and with


The Court of Appeal has recently given judgment in relation to recoverability for psychiatric injury by a “secondary victim”.  In Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194, the claimant brought a claim arising from the death of her mother, who had been injured at work when a colleague had caused a stack


Bank Mellat v HM Treasury UKSC 2011/0040     The Supreme Court held a hearing in secret today, for the first time in its history.   According to the BBC, the justices spent 45 minutes in a locked session with a security guard stood outside the door to prevent anyone from entering. The hearing was so


Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars


Subscribe