Cecil Parkinson’s disabled child in ‘financial hardship’ – BBC News

Posted May 9th, 2018 in disabled persons, litigation friends, news, wills by tracey

‘The disabled daughter of the late Conservative Party chairman Cecil Parkinson is living in “serious financial hardship”, a court has heard.

The latest hearing was to determine if Sara Keays could make legal decisions on behalf of her 34-year-old daughter.’

Full Story

BBC News, 8th May 2018

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

CoA right to take stern line on McKenzie friend concept, solicitors say – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 31st, 2017 in appeals, litigation friends, McKenzie friends, news by sally

‘A Court of Appeal judgment that discouraged use of the term ‘McKenzie friend’ and described the bad experiences that some court users have had with unqualified advisers has met mixed views from the profession.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 26th May 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

“Don’t call them McKenzie friends” – Court of Appeal looks to counter growth of unqualified advisers in crime cases – Legal Futures

‘The term “McKenzie friend” is not appropriate in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, the vice-president of the court has said in a ruling detailing the problems that the increasing number of “unqualified third parties” is causing.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 26th May 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

To be able or not to be able : Capacity issues in personal injury litigation part 1 – Zenith PI Blog

‘This article is the first in a series of 2, dealing with the question of capacity in PI litigation particularly, and civil proceedings generally.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 18th January 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Oversupply of law graduates and growing number of LiPs are solution to each other’s problem, says MR – Legal Futures

‘The combination of an oversupply of law graduates shut out of the profession due to fewer training contracts or pupillages and the growing number of litigants in person (LiPs) offers an opportunity to enhance access to justice while helping students into practice, the Master of the Rolls has said.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 7th December 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Lecture by Sir Terence Etherton, MR: LawWorks Annual Pro Bono Awards lecture 2016 – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

‘It is a real pleasure to have been asked to give this year’s LawWorks Annual Pro Bono Awards lecture. My subject is Access to Justice. I am not interested in it as a slogan. I am interested in it because access to justice lies at the heart of any society that aspires to call itself just, civilised, and committed to democracy and the rule of law.’

Full speech

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 7th December 2016

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB)

‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’

WLR Daily, 1st July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

McDonald (by her litigation friend) v McDonald and others [2016] UKSC 28 – Henderson Chambers

‘In this alerter Hannah Curtain & George Mallet consider the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald (by her litigation friend) v McDonald and Ors [2016] UKSC 28.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, June 2016

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Questions and Answers – Nearly Legal

‘A judicial review of a decision on a s.17 Children Act 1989 assessment of a homeless, non-eligible family. The issues were the extent of investigations required, and legitimate conclusions to be drawn from a lack of information provided.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 8th May 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Immigration tribunal can appoint litigation friend despite no provision in the rules – Free Movement

‘In the recent case of R (on the application of C) v First-Tier Tribunal and Others [2016] EWHC 707 (Admin) (not yet on BAILII but available on Westlaw) Picken J ruled that the immigration tribunal can appoint a litigation friend to represent a person who lacks capacity even though there is no provision to do so in the procedure rules, nor indeed in the statutory underpinnings of the tribunal.’

Full story

Free Movement, 27th April 2016

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Mental Capacity Law Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street

Mental Capacity Law Newsletter (PDF)

Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015

Source: www.39essex.com

In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) – WLR Daily

In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) [2015] EWCA Civ 26; [2015] WLR (D) 44

‘Where a court was determining, for the purposes of article 13 of the Hague Convention 1980, whether a child objected to being returned and had attained the age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of its views, the use of sub-tests and technicality were to be avoided.’

WLR Daily, 27th January 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

“Nowadays not all law can be simple law; but the best law remains simple law” – Family Law Week

Posted February 11th, 2015 in appeals, child abduction, children, consent, custody, families, joinder, litigation friends, news by sally

‘Christopher Hames and Dorothea Gartland, of 4 Paper Buildings, & Nina Hansen, a partner of Freemans Solicitors, consider the important Court of Appeal judgment in Re M (Republic of Ireland) (Children’s Objection) (Joinder of Children as Parties).’

Full story

Family Law Week, 4th February 2015

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 168 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 141

‘The termination of a solicitor’s actual authority by reason of a client’s supervening mental incapacity did not, it itself, automatically frustrate the underlying contract of retainer.’

WLR Daily, 5th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) – Supreme Court

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 18

Supreme Court, 12th March 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2): [2014] UKSC 18;  [2014] WLR (D)  122

‘The test of capacity to conduct proceedings for the purpose of CPR Pt 21 was the capacity to conduct the claim or cause of action which the claimant in fact had, rather than the claim as formulated by her lawyers. A consent order based on the settlement of a claim by a claimant who lacked capacity and did not have a litigation friend was not valid even though the claimant was legally represented.’

WLR Daily, 12th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Supreme Court places protection of vulnerable parties ahead of need for finality in litigation – Litigation Futures

‘The policy underlying the Civil Procedure Rules is that protected parties need protection not only from themselves but also from their legal advisers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th March 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com