Publications by Area of Law


Family Affairs November 2017 | Financial Remedy update Summer to Autumn

Barrister: Christopher Sharp QC
Area of Law: Family Finance, ToLATA and Inheritance
Source: FLBA’s Family Affairs: November 2017                                                                             Date: November 2017
Summary:  The article continues Christopher’s regular reviews of the more important recent financial remedy cases, this one covering the period from June 2017 – November 2017.

Download article: Family Affairs November 2017 | Summer to Autumn Edition | Financial Remedy update

Supreme Court hold Local Authority vicariously liable for abuse by foster parents

Barrister: Marcus Coates-Walker
Area of Law: Personal Injury
Summary: Marcus Coates-Walker, reports on the recent case of Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, regarding care of the appellant by the respondent local authority from the ages of 7 to 18.

View/download full article: Supreme Court hold Local Authority vicariously liable for abuse by foster parents

What does the new edition of the Judicial College Guidelines 2017 bring?

Barrister: Rachel Segal
Area of Law: Personal Injury
Date: 18th September 2017
Summary: Rachel has published an article on the long-awaited fourteenth edition of the Judicial College Guidelines (for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injuries). The guidelines were published on 14th September 2017 (and is already available via Lawtel).

So what does the new edition bring?

There are no obvious significant changes in the guidelines and there is unlikely to be any need for a wholesale re-think of the valuation of most ongoing claims. As expected, all brackets have been adjusted upwards to a modest extent, reflecting the average 4.8% RPI increase since the committee finalised the previous edition. For example, minor neck injuries falling within the bracket 7(A)(c)(ii) will attract up to £3,810 (with the Simmons v Castle uplift) or £3,470 (without), compared to £3,630 or £3,300 respectively in the 13th edition. There might be some short term pain for defendants in low value MOJ Stage 3 assessments where portal offers have been made with regard to the 13th edition (although the balance to this is that the tariff system may well be implemented prior to the 15th edition of the guidelines).

In terms of any noteworthy updates, there is the abandonment of different brackets for scarring according to whether the injured person is male or female. This has an impact on the application of Chapters 9 (Facial Injuries) and 10 (Scarring to Other Parts of the Body). The subjective views of the injured person in respect of the scarring remains a focus for assessing quantum in those cases.

There is no separate category for persistent vegetative state (PVS) although this is provided for in a new way in the Brain and Head Injury brackets at Chapter 3 (A)(a) (Very Severe Brain Damage) and 3(A)(b) (Moderately Severe Brain Damage). The new guidelines suggest that while 3(A)(a) is the likely http://premier-pharmacy.com/product/xenical/ bracket (at the lower end) for PVS with life expectancy in excess of 15 years, 3(A)(b) provides for cases where there is a permanent vegetative state with severely reduced life expectancy. The 14th edition also indicates that cases where there is a persistent vegetative state and death occurs very soon after the injuries were suffered the award will be solely for loss of amenity and will fall below the bracket at 3(A)(b) (this contrasts particularly with the guidance at the end of 3(A)(a) of the 13th edition).

Mr Justice Langstaff chairs the JCG Committee that produces these guidelines. In his very useful new introduction he makes reference inter alia to the weight given to duration of any symptoms in minor injuries, suggesting that the often linear approach proposed by many advocates (and adopted by many district and deputy district judges) that focuses too casually on duration might not always be appropriate. This is a welcome comment, particularly for situations where there appears to be a disconnect between the objective findings of the medical expert on examination, the reported effects on the claimant, and the prognosis given.

There is also a useful reminder for judges and practitioners alike that the Guidelines are what they say on the tin, and “not tramlines”. There is clearly room for meaningful argument in both directions.

In his foreword, Irwin LJ makes apt reference to the uncertain and ever-changing politico-legal context in which the new Guidelines appear, not least the UK exit from the EU and concomitant Great Repeal Bill (however that evolves), and the advent of the electronic civil court all under the watch of the fourth non-lawyer Lord Chancellor. There are indeed interesting times ahead.

The family court’s jurisdiction to direct the burial of a child: Re K

Barrister: Christopher Sharp QC
Area of Law: Children
Source: Family Law Journal

Date: August 2017
Summary:  Christopher Sharp QC, who is acknowledged by Chambers UK as one of only five star Silks in Family Law in the country,  has written an article for the August edition of the Family Law Journal, reviewing the recent case of Re K (A Child : deceased) [2017] EWHC 1083 (Fam).

Download article: The family court’s jurisdiction to direct the burial of a child: Re K

Mutual Wills: the case of Legg and Burton v Burton and others A proprietary estoppel solution to replace the need for a binding contract?

Barrister: John Dickinson
Area of Law:  Wills, Trusts & Tax
Date: 14 August 2017
Summary: The case contains a useful summary of the mutual wills doctrine. HHJ Matthews considered submissions made on the fallibility of memory, referring to the decision of Leggatt J in Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) and he analysed the evidence in terms of its inherent probability and the plausibility of the Claimants’ case. HHJ Matthews finds a proprietary estoppel route around the problem in the much criticised case of Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), in which section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 was held to prevent a binding contract from arising for a specific gift of an interest in land and this in turn prevented a mutual wills constructive trust from being established. There is an interesting analysis of when a mutual wills constructive trust crystallises.  HHJ Matthews considered that in a mutual wills case the constructive trust would generally arise on the death of the second testator, unless the agreement made between them had some term providing to the contrary. He considered whether the mutual wills constructive trust satisfied the so-called ‘three certainties’ rule, being (1) the intention to make a gift, (2) over what property and (3) who to. HHJ Matthews explains that the ‘three certainties’ rule is not a rule about trust law but rather a rule about property law, and that trusts being part of property law must follow that rule.  The judgment is available here.

Download article: Mutual Wills: the case of Legg and Burton v Burton and others – A proprietary estoppel solution to replace the need for a binding contract?  

Catalano v Espley-Tyas Development Group Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1132

Barrister: Darren Lewis

Darren analyses the recent Court of Appeal case of Catalano v Espley-Tyas Development Group Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1132, which overturns the Court’s findings in the case of Julie Casseldine v Diocese of Llandaff Board for Social Responsibility (a charity) (2015).

Click here to read the full case: Catalano v Espley-Tyas Development Group Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1132

Read the full article: New Court of Appeal Judgment provides clarity on QOCS – Darren Lewis of St John’s Chambers – 31 07 17. pdf

 

Family Affairs June 2017 | Summer Edition | Financial Remedy update (04.03.17 – 13.06.17)

Barrister: Christopher Sharp QC
Area of Law: Family Finance, ToLATA and Inheritance
Source: FLBA’s Family Affairs: June 2017                                                                                     Date: March 2017
Summary:  The article continues Christopher’s regular reviews of the more important recent financial remedy cases, this one covering the period from March 2017 to June 2017.

Download article: Family Affairs June 2017 | Summer Edition | Financial Remedy update (04.03.17 – 13.06.17)

QOCS and Credit Hire: a Pyrrhic victory avoided and…Autofocus: the End of the Road.

Barrister: Patrick West

Area of law: Personal Injury 

Date: 21 July 2017

Summary: Patrick addresses credit hire charges referencing the case of Select Car Rentals (North West) Ltd v Esure Services Ltd (2017) [2017] EWHC 1434 (QB).

Download article: Latest article from Patrick West | QOCS and Credit Hire: a Pyrrhic victory avoided and…Autofocus: the End of the Road

Mules, Muck Sweats and the Mediation Trough – A Follow Up

Source: St John’s Chambers
Barrister:  Rebecca Taylor & Andrew Kearney
Area of Law: Mediation
Date: June 2017

Download article: Mules, Muck Sweats and The Mediation Trough – A Follow Up

Mules, Muck Sweats and The Mediation Trough – A Follow Up

Source: St John’s Chambers
Barrister: Andrew Kearney & Rebecca Taylor
Area of Law: Mediation
Date: June 2017

Download article: Mules, Muck Sweats and The Mediation Trough – A Follow Up


PreviousNext