Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
Whether the claimant or defendant, successful parties to civil litigation can be disappointed to hear that they are highly unlikely to recover all of their legal spend. The losing party is only required to pay what is considered reasonable and proportionate. A key feature in what is recovered is the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by the successful litigant’s solicitors.
A Civil Fraud quarterly round-up (2nd quarter 2021)
With charities under unprecedented media interest in recent years, the consequences of not dealing with reputation matters well are myriad. Negative press coverage threatens the faith that the public have in a charity which can result in a significant downturn in donations and affect recruitment and morale. Any charity’s reputation once damaged can be difficult to restore. The resources a charity must commit to responding to media enquiries and to any regulatory inquiry can be significant and is time spent away from pursuing the objectives of the charity.
In the recent case of Secretary of State for Health (“NHS”) v Servier Laboratories Ltd (“Servier”), the Supreme Court considered whether in cases involving loss caused by unlawful means, the unlawful means must have affected a third party's freedom to deal with the claimant. This is known as “the dealing requirement”.
The long awaited Supreme Court decision of Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton provides some much needed and useful clarification on what constitutes and amounts to “negligent” advice.
Sharon Burkill
Natalie Cohen
Caroline Sheldon
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2025 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility