Latest Cases


Miller v Miller

[2018] EWHC 1926 (Ch)

Barrister: Christopher Jones
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts and Probate
Summary: Christopher advised and represented the successful Claimants in their application for orders in the construction and rectification of a lifetime settlement.  Conflicting provisions within the trust instrument provided that where a gift of the fund failed it should revert to the settlors, but another provision excluded the settlors from benefitting under the settlement.  The Court adopted the test in Marley v Rawlings 2014 UKSC 2, and confirmed that the test for the proper construction of trusts is the same test as is applied to wills.

 

G v Z (2018)

Barrister: Robert Mills
Date: 11th June 2018
Area of Law: Clinical negligence
Summary: Robert represented the Claimant at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The Claimant was awarded the highest general damages award ever reported in a dental negligence case in the sum of £65,000.00. The total damages award was in excess of £160,000.00 which was also the highest ever reported in a dental claim. This was a claim for extensive restorative treatment arising out of a wide range of negligently performed dental treatment.

There were four elements to general damages:

  1. The loss of nine otherwise healthy teeth.
  2. 37 unnecessary items of dental treatment including crowns and root canal fillings.
  3. Occlusal problems such that the Claimant had only three contact points in her mouth and was unable to eat hard foods.
  4. Psychological injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder and specific phobia anxiety relating to dental treatment.

Gee v Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 Ch

Barrister: Leslie Blohm QC
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts & Tax 
Summary: Leslie has recently been instructed in the latest farming case to consider a claim by a farmer’s child to the family farm. The Claimant, now sixty years old, sought to succeed to the farm he was promised over decades. His father had recently given his interest in the family farm and the family farming company to his other son, a property developer. The case was complicated by the total denial by both father and other son of any promises being made to the Claimant; the nature of the promises that were claimed (relating to the ‘lion’s share’ of the farm), and the fact that the mother had already given her share of the farm and company to the Claimant son to try to remedy what she saw as unjust behaviour. Mr Justice Birss heard evidence over five days and awarded the Claimant son his expectation interest, but with the detailed order to await a subsequent hearing.

Download judgment: Gee v Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 Ch

Churston Golf Club v Haddock [2018] EWHC 347

Barrister: John Sharples
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: John acted for the successful respondent in an appeal which established, for the first time, that it was legally possible to create a fencing easement by express grant. The court also held that the obligation in issue, although framed as a covenant, took effect as a grant.

View bailii link: Churston Golf Club v Haddock [2018] EWHC 347

Food Convertors & Rothschild v Newell [2018] EWHC 926 (Ch)

Barrister: John Sharples
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: John acted for the successful respondent in an appeal which determined whether adverse possession of land was established by enclosure and whether a squatter who obtained possession could lose it by reasons other than dispossession by the true owner.

View bailii link: Food Convertors & Rothschild v Newell [2018] EWHC 926 (Ch)

Latest Publications


Miller v Miller

[2018] EWHC 1926 (Ch)

Barrister: Christopher Jones
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts and Probate
Summary: Christopher advised and represented the successful Claimants in their application for orders in the construction and rectification of a lifetime settlement.  Conflicting provisions within the trust instrument provided that where a gift of the fund failed it should revert to the settlors, but another provision excluded the settlors from benefitting under the settlement.  The Court adopted the test in Marley v Rawlings 2014 UKSC 2, and confirmed that the test for the proper construction of trusts is the same test as is applied to wills.

 

G v Z (2018)

Barrister: Robert Mills
Date: 11th June 2018
Area of Law: Clinical negligence
Summary: Robert represented the Claimant at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The Claimant was awarded the highest general damages award ever reported in a dental negligence case in the sum of £65,000.00. The total damages award was in excess of £160,000.00 which was also the highest ever reported in a dental claim. This was a claim for extensive restorative treatment arising out of a wide range of negligently performed dental treatment.

There were four elements to general damages:

  1. The loss of nine otherwise healthy teeth.
  2. 37 unnecessary items of dental treatment including crowns and root canal fillings.
  3. Occlusal problems such that the Claimant had only three contact points in her mouth and was unable to eat hard foods.
  4. Psychological injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder and specific phobia anxiety relating to dental treatment.

Gee v Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 Ch

Barrister: Leslie Blohm QC
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts & Tax 
Summary: Leslie has recently been instructed in the latest farming case to consider a claim by a farmer’s child to the family farm. The Claimant, now sixty years old, sought to succeed to the farm he was promised over decades. His father had recently given his interest in the family farm and the family farming company to his other son, a property developer. The case was complicated by the total denial by both father and other son of any promises being made to the Claimant; the nature of the promises that were claimed (relating to the ‘lion’s share’ of the farm), and the fact that the mother had already given her share of the farm and company to the Claimant son to try to remedy what she saw as unjust behaviour. Mr Justice Birss heard evidence over five days and awarded the Claimant son his expectation interest, but with the detailed order to await a subsequent hearing.

Download judgment: Gee v Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 Ch

Churston Golf Club v Haddock [2018] EWHC 347

Barrister: John Sharples
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: John acted for the successful respondent in an appeal which established, for the first time, that it was legally possible to create a fencing easement by express grant. The court also held that the obligation in issue, although framed as a covenant, took effect as a grant.

View bailii link: Churston Golf Club v Haddock [2018] EWHC 347

Food Convertors & Rothschild v Newell [2018] EWHC 926 (Ch)

Barrister: John Sharples
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: John acted for the successful respondent in an appeal which determined whether adverse possession of land was established by enclosure and whether a squatter who obtained possession could lose it by reasons other than dispossession by the true owner.

View bailii link: Food Convertors & Rothschild v Newell [2018] EWHC 926 (Ch)

Share This