‘In King v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1576 (QB), the High Court once again demonstrated the difficulties faced by Claimants who suffer psychiatric conditions as a result of witnessing loved ones (in this case, a new-born baby) die in hospital.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 12th July 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘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 recent decision by the High Court of England and Wales highlights the breadth of its jurisdiction to grant access to documents that have been referred to in a public hearing, according to experts at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th May 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In this post, Harriet Munro and Rowena Williams, members of the insurance disputes team at CMS, discuss the decision of the UK Supreme Court in the matter Burnett or Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Limited [2021] UKSC 12, which concerns the application of a ‘deliberate acts’ exclusion in insurance policies.’
UKSC Blog, 21st May 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Joseph Rainer and Thomas Haggie, barristers of Queen Elizabeth Building, consider third-party assets and their bearing on the court’s assessment of resources in financial remedy cases.’
Family Law Week, 28th April 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Agreements with third-party litigation funders are not damages-based agreements (DBAs), three Court of Appeal judges – albeit sitting in the Divisional Court – have decided.’
Litigation Futures, 8th March 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The continuing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is slowly but surely beginning to cast a shadow over personal injury claims. As the months have rolled on, viable businesses, starved of custom, are facing the prospect of being forced to cease trading. Those same businesses are the Defendants in many ongoing and pending claims. So, what happens when a Defendant becomes insolvent?’
St John's Chambers, February 2021
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘Employment tribunals were intended when first introduced in 1963 to be easily accessible, simple, and straightforward but have gradually taken on more of the appearance of courts. There was a somewhat naive belief in the beginning that justice in such tribunals could be achieved without the parties needing lawyers. The presiding officer was called a chair but is now a judge. And tribunals of course now deal with cases of great complexity, recondite legal areas and with millions at stake. A continuing fundamental difference from a court, however, is that the tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction but only what the dizzying array of statutes provide them.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘This case sets out the key principles and procedure to be followed under applications pursuant to section 10A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) where the court has to determine the extent of the interest of a third party in property held by a defendant that is likely to be realised or otherwise used to satisfy a confiscation order. The court held that where the prosecution intends to prove that a defendant has a beneficial interest in property and another holds, or may hold, an interest in that property, the burden and standard to be applied are those of the civil standard. Where matrimonial property is concerned, the court is entitled to look to the evidence and draw such inferences as they see fit to determine whether beneficial interest should follow legal title. Such evidence can include sham divorce proceedings and the use of property for a joint purpose.’
5SAH, 30th November 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘Earlier this year Hilder J considered the question of whether a deputy can recover their costs from the protected person’s assets when they have instructed a legal firm with which they are associated. Amelia Walker discusses this judgment, which also outlines the limits of a deputy’s authority, with Rosalind English.’
Law Pod UK, 30th November 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘The court held that a private prosecutor was entitled to recover their costs from central funds in relation to a High Court application for enforcement of a confiscation order. Such proceedings are “in respect of an indictable offence” for the purposes of section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985). The court also held that, where the private prosecutor, in the same proceedings, had been ordered to pay the costs of a third party (having unsuccessfully asserted that the third party had been in receipt of a tainted gift), then those costs were also recoverable from central funds. While the confiscation proceedings in question had arisen under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988), the court held that the same principles would apply under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002).’
5SAH, 13th November 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in London has strengthened the tools available to rights holders when seeking to control and exploit commercially valuable data within sport and set out the pitfalls for third parties who seek to do the same without clear, unambiguous approval from a rights holder.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In this case comment, David Bridge and Jessica Foley, both solicitor-advocates within the CMS litigation & arbitration team, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this summer in the matter of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31, which concerned whether the rule against reflective loss bars creditors of a company from claiming directly against a third party for asset-stripping the company.’
UKSC Blog, 4th September 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This was the question the court was asked to answer in RSK Environmental Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 26th August 2020
‘In Episode 119 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Gideon Barth about secondary victim claims, and the recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.’
Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘The Cape v Dring litigation concerns an attempt by a non-party to obtain copies of the trial bundle used during a six-week asbestos trial involving Cape which settled before judgment in early 2017. At first instance the Master granted the non-party permission to have copies of all documents, including the trial bundle of 5000 pages of disclosure, referred to at the trial. The Supreme Court confirmed in July 2019 that the non-party was entitled to written submissions, witness statements and expert reports under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, but remitted the question of what, if any, documents in the trial bundle the non-party should obtain to the original trial judge. On 16 July 2020 Picken J considered that question and held that Mr Dring was not entitled to receive any other documents.’
Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020
‘The English High Court has refused to give access to court documents on the basis that doing so would not advance the principles of open justice.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The ban on conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in family cases should not be read across to third-party litigation funding, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The group whose bid to access a bundle from litigation involving an asbestos manufacturer led to a Supreme Court ruling on open justice has failed in its application for the documents.’
Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025