The Law Society Gazette and Third Sector recently reported that a number of charities, including Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Yorkshire Cancer Research, the British Heart Foundation and the National Trust, issued a claim against a former solicitor, Linda Box. They claim to have been deprived of a legacy gift from a Will of which she was the co-executor. Box was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2017, having admitted to 12 offences of fraud, theft and forgery while working as a senior partner at a firm of solicitors in Wakefield, having stolen approximately £4 million. The fraud is said to have been conducted using a process known as “teeming and lading” whereby money is moved between client accounts to hide a shortfall or theft.
A search order, made pursuant to section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and CPR Part 25, is one of the most draconian orders the English civil courts can make. No Respondent really wants a search team to enter their premises but because of Covid -19 the search team is even less welcome than usual.
In a recent case, Ward & Ors v Savill  EWHC 1534 (Ch), the judge had to grapple with the question - can a claimant rely on an earlier judgment granted in one case involving different parties to enable it to bring a new claim against a different defendant without having to re-plead and prove the facts and matters it relied on in the first case?
I have always had a soft spot for the Black Swan jurisdiction: nothing to do with the law, but because it reminds me of my previous study of philosophy and the use of “all swans are white” as an example of falsification theory.