‘The scope of duty and the extent of liability of professional advisers are two hotly contested issues at the core of many a dispute between professional advisers and their clients in negligence claims.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th August 2021
‘Preparations are being made for the deportation of a number of Jamaican nationals who came to the UK as children, in an apparent reversal of an earlier agreement not to deport people who arrived in this country as minors. A charter flight to Jamaica is scheduled for 11 August, returning several dozen people whose criminal convictions have triggered deportation orders. However, campaigners have protested that it is unreasonable to remove people who have spent a lifetime in the UK to a country where they have no ties.’
The Guardian, 5th August 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected as “too binary” the approach taken by a High Court judge when striking out a negligence claim against lawyers over their former client’s capacity to litigate.’
Legal Futures, 5th August 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In this post, Max Eshraghi, an associate working within the insurance team at CMS, comments on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Matthew and others v Sedman and others [2021] UKSC 19, which concerns the application of limitation timebar.’
UKSC Blog, 4th August 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In its 23 July 2021 judgment, the Supreme Court tackled the severe limitations of solicitors’ undertakings in the modern era in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32. All practitioners will need to know about this vitally important unanimous judgment.’
Hailsham Chambers, 26th July 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has delivered its long-awaited judgment in R (on the application of SC, CB and 8 children) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (Respondents) on the two-child rule (in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016) limiting key subsistence benefits to two children per household, and it wastes no opportunity to disappoint.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 26th July 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘What is reasonable diligence when a company has entered an insolvency process and has abandoned its trading functions?’
Gatehouse Chambers, 22nd July 2021
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning the law of limitation.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A man who received “devastating news” that his lower leg needed to be amputated seven years after settling his personal injury claim is not prevented by limitation from suing his lawyers for negligence, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 21st July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘This is, so we have been repeatedly told, the vehicle through which the government will save leaseholders from having to pay life-changing sums to remediate the fire safety defects which are so prevalent at blocks of flats across the country. The headline is that it does not do that (nor does it contain the details of the much delayed loan scheme). To the contrary, this Bill creates a bespoke process by which landlords of “higher-risk” buildings can recover their building safety costs even if their leases do not let them do so.’
Nearly Legal, 5th July 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court (Morgan J.) has delivered judgment in Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Hazlett [2021] EWHC 1652 (Ch), concerning the Axminster Carpets Group pension plan. It is now the leading judgment on limitation in claims by pension scheme beneficiaries for arrears. It also gives key guidance on the court’s power to award interest on such claims and on the interpretation and exercise of forfeiture clauses, and makes certain findings on the scope of s.37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. This summary only scratches the surface of a detailed 347-paragraph judgment covering several different areas of pensions and trusts law. A more flippant title might have been: “The Axminster Carpets case: a pile of issues…”’
Wilberforce Chambers, 24th June 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘Does a professional such as a solicitor, architect or pensions adviser have a duty to revisit their work and to correct a mistake they’ve made earlier? This is an important question for any professional and can be particularly significant when a client alleges that work done many years ago was negligent.’
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘In Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326, the Court of Appeal recently refused to dismiss a claim seeking damages from a UK-domiciled company following its sale of a ship to a third party, which arranged for its disposal in an unsafe manner. Although limited to arguability, it offers key insights into how duties could evolve into the consequences of corporates’ interactions with third parties.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th June 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A professional negligence claim against solicitors was issued too late because the clock began ticking from when the mistake was initially made rather than when damage ensued, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th May 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Ben Norton considers the meaning of “deliberate”, “concealment” and “breach of duty” under s.32 Limitation Act 1980 in the context of the Consumer Credit Act’s unfair relationship provisions following Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter.’
Henderson Chambers, 19th March 2021
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Some breaches of contract do not become apparent until many years have passed. This is especially true where the result is a defect. Recently, our colleague Charlotte Mears blogged on limitation periods under contract. But what happens after the limitation period under a contract has expired? This blog explores the extent to which an answer lies in tort focusing on the tort of negligence.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog , 7th April 2021
‘Your starting point, like mine, to the above question, which I will leave you to mull over the Easter break, is likely “of course!”. But why? This question was first explored by Peter Clyde in his blog in 2012. Since then we have had the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc, but does this change the analysis?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 30th March 2021
‘On the face of it, the law of limitation seems fairly straightforward. The law in England and Wales specifies that anyone bringing a breach of contract claim has six years from the date of the breach in which to do so. This period is extended to 12 years from the breach of contract if the contract has been executed as a deed. But what happens when a provision such as the one below is added into the mix? Does this work to extend the limitation period? If not, what exactly does this provision, which I’ll refer to as the Proposed Clause, mean?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 23rd March 2021
‘In Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, Mrs B and her husband had attended the Kingdom Hall in Barry and in 1986 Mrs B was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness. They became friendly with another couple, Mark and Mary Sewell. Mark Sewell was a ministerial servant and subsequently became an elder. On 30 April 1990, Sewell raped Mrs B in a room in his house – and that fact was undisputed. In 2014, Sewell was convicted of raping Mrs B and of indecently assaulting a girl aged under 14, CXC, and another individual and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. Mrs B sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation and, at first instance, Chamberlain J held them vicariously liable for her rape. (He also determined that it was equitable to extend the time to allow the claims to proceed, pursuant to s.33 Limitation Act 1980). He awarded Mrs B £62,000 for psychiatric injuries attributable to the rape. On appeal, the defendants disputed.’
Law & Religion UK, 24th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024