Dispute Resolution

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)

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Lillo Sciortino vs Marc Beaumont [2021] EWCA Civ 786 provides useful guidance on limitation in professional negligence claims and confirms that a barrister who gave two pieces of negligent advice in respect of the same matter could be sued even though the claim in respect of the first piece of advice was out of time and statute-barred.

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.

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.

The price of Bitcoin and other crypto assets is notoriously unstable. Whether caused by a cryptic crypto related tweet from a billionaire inventor, or a crypto crackdown being announced by regulators of the world’s second largest economy, the rise and fall of crypto assets continues to prove that crypto can be risky business.

Matthew & Others v Sedman & Others [2021] UKSC 19 

The Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment dealing with time limits in a “midnight deadline” case. The claim was brought by new trustees and beneficiaries of a will trust against the former professional trustees. The claim involved allegations of negligence against the former trustees, along with breach of trust and breach of contract.

Daniel Staunton explores the inherent conflict between the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts and the family courts and asks which jurisdiction trumps the other? This article focuses on the authorities in relation to section 284 and when family court orders might be liable to be set aside as void dispositions

Mary Young explores how divorce settlements between spouses may be caught later down the line in bankruptcy proceedings as potential TUVs where there are dishonest motives.

What often happens when the insolvency courts and family courts collide; the potential effect a bankruptcy order of one spouse can have on a financial order made in favour of the non-bankrupt spouse and the different tests of each court.

 Financial abuse of older and vulnerable adults is sadly becoming more prevalent

This quarterly media and reputation management update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period January to March 2021.

My previous blog examined whether Kenny Goss, the ex-partner of George Michael, may be entitled to a provision from the late singer’s estate, notwithstanding the fact that their relationship had broken down in 2009 (seven years prior to Mr Michael’s death). It was reported at the time that Mr Goss was seeking an award of £15,000 per month on the basis that Mr Michael had been financially maintaining Mr Goss at the time of his death. Pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Mr Goss made an application for reasonable financial provision from Mr Michael’s estate because he had not been left anything in the singer’s will.

In the case of KOZA LTD and HAMDI IPEK –v- KOZA ALTIN IŞLETMELERI AS [2021] EWHC 786 (Ch), Mr Justice Trower awarded an injunction restraining Mr Ipek, Koza Ltd (“KL”)’s sole director, from causing KL to use its funds to pay legal costs in the litigation, which was in reality a shareholder dispute between Mr Ipek and Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS (“KAI”).  The decision upholds the ‘legal costs principle’ in company disputes, which provides that a company’s money should not be spent on disputes between shareholders.

In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to  disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.

In recent years the courts have seen a significant number of claims under the 1975 Act bought by adult children. This week it has been widely reported that the two adult daughters of Tony Shearer, a high profile banker and finance governor of a well-known public school, have failed in their attempt to bring a claim against their late father’s £2.2 million estate. Mr Shearer made no provision in his estate for his daughters leaving the majority of his wealth to his second wife.

A Civil Fraud quarterly round-up (1st quarter 2021)

Examining the impact of Sofer v Swiss Independent Trustees SA on practitioners in England and Wales. 

This article was first published by STEP, December 2020: Katherine Pymont, 'Moments of Truth', Trust Quarterly Review (Vol18 Iss4), pp.36-41