Dispute Resolution Law Blog

4 March 2019

What if you’ve been left an inheritance, but not in the way that you want?

On 8 November 2018, almost 17 months out of time, Mary Jane Cowan made an application under Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for permission to make an application under Section 2 of that Act against the estate of her deceased husband, Michael Anthony Cowan (Cowan v Foreman, [2019] EWHC 349 Fam).

Laura Phillips

26 February 2019

Victims of blackmail: will your identity be protected?

For those who find themselves the unfortunate victims of blackmail, often in cases which concern sexually explicit information (‘sextortion’), the choice of how to respond can be extraordinarily difficult. As discussed in our earlier blog, one of the possible responses is to report the matter to the police, which may then result in a subsequent prosecution of the blackmailer.

Will Hayes

21 February 2019

Was the Cliff Richard judgment really a blow to press freedom? The “Drone Couple” would likely disagree

The Cliff Richard privacy judgment was thought to be a landmark case when it comes to press reporting of a police investigation. Headlines following the judgment included “The Cliff Richard judgment is a chilling blow to press freedom” and “Cliff Richard privacy judgment threatens press freedom”. Whilst the result was a positive end to a terrible experience for Cliff Richard, has it really changed how the press report allegations? In this blog, we explore whether the ruling is taken into account when reporting on other types of investigations.

Gerard Cukier

21 February 2019

Be warned - you can be held liable for the defamatory comments of another!

In the recent High Court judgment of Monir v Wood [2018], the Court held the Defendant liable for a defamatory tweet, even though he did not post or have knowledge of the tweet at the time. The Defendant was also held liable for failing to remove the defamatory material once it was brought to his attention.

Siân Akerman

11 February 2019

Incorrect information or advice: to what extent will a professional be held liable?

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2019] re-enforces that the correct approach in professional negligence cases is to distinguish between ‘information’ and ‘advice’ cases when considering the extent to which a professional may be liable. The decision confirms that the distinction is necessary, important and requires consideration of the extent of any assumed responsibility.

Jemma Brimblecombe

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility