‘The High Court has refused an appeal by a London solicitor against conditions being placed on his practising certificate.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 25th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority insists its “radical” handbook reforms will widen access to justice, acknowledging that certain safeguards will be needed if solicitors are given greater freedom to deliver legal services outside regulated firms.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 14th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
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
Daniel and another v Tee and others [2016] EWHC 1538 (Ch)
‘The defendants were professional solicitor trustees of a trust of which the claimants were the beneficiaries. The claimants sought compensation for breach of trust in connection with the investment of the trust funds in the period 2000 to 2002.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)
‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A costs application, delayed by over five months as a result of “elementary errors” by solicitors, has been rejected as out of time by the First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT).’
Litigation Futures, 12th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Law Society has blasted Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) plans to allow solicitors to practise from unregulated businesses, saying they risk creating a two-tier profession and eroding the standing of the profession.’
Legal Futures, 12th July 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Fraud victims outside London whose cases are reported to the police have “little chance of any kind of investigation”, an authoritative study has found.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Solicitors who have experience of sharia law were today urged to take part in an independent review examining whether the religious code is being misused within Britain.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘One in three cases of conveyancing fraud – where victims lose an average of £101,000 – is not even passed on to the police for further investigation, Telegraph Money has learned.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The legal profession is today digesting the UK’s historic decision to vote to leave the European Union.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The 10% uplift claimants receive for beating their part 36 offer includes contractual interest on the sum won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 27th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal against a decision that cleared two solicitors of “dishonest assistance in a breach of trust”, in this case a mortgage fraud.’
Legal Futures, 23rd June 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Richard Miller explains what may be in store when the new criminal legal aid contracts come into force next year.’
Legal Voice, 23rd June 2016
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024