Blog
Lafarge convictions: a landmark moment in corporate criminal accountability
Louise Hodges
29 July 2021
Civil Fraud Quarterly Round-Up: Q2 2021
A Civil Fraud quarterly round-up (2nd quarter 2021)
23 July 2021
When charities are under the media spotlight - how is reputation best protected?
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.
21 July 2021
Causing Loss by Unlawful Means - the Dealing Requirement
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”.
20 July 2021
The distinction between “advice” and “information” negligence cases
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.
28 June 2021
Spotlight on dementia: can you challenge a will despite the views of medical experts?
Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, has been in the spotlight recently given a recent scientific breakthrough with the US approving the first new Alzheimer’s drug in 20 years. Light has also been shed on dementia and assessing testamentary capacity in the recent case of Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 Ch. In this case, Mr Hughes, who suffered from moderately severe dementia was nevertheless deemed to have capacity at the time of amending his will by his GP, a view supported by a joint medical expert later instructed in the case. Despite this, his will was overturned by the judge on the basis that he did not have the requisite capacity to make the changes to his previous will, which were much more significant than the medical professionals, and indeed Mr Hughes, had appreciated.
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Claims against banks
- Costs Law
- Court of Protection Disputes
- Cross-border litigation
- Defamation, privacy & reputation
- Fraud
- Restructuring & Insolvency
- Intellectual property claims
- Legal updates
- Litigation process
- Professional negligence
- Shareholder and Boardroom Disputes
- Wills, trusts and inheritance disputes