Articles

3PB's Susan Jones relies on April 2017 Court of Appeal decision to defend a £49,000 costs application in its entirety. On 20th April 2017, in what is likely to be one of the first applications of the Court of Appeal decision in Peter Mills Dammerman v Lanyon Bowlder LLP (2017) Susan successfully appeared for a Defendant in a costs dispute following settlement of a small claim in favour of a Defendant's counterclaim for an offer made by the Claimant almost 3 years earlier.

Commercial update: 'Avoided loss' in the Supreme Court - Lowick Rose v. Swynson - an analysis by Joe England. When can a claimant ask the Court to disregard a 'collateral' benefit, when assessing his damages? If he cannot, can he claim for a loss that has been suffered by somebody else?

Joe England analyses the important Supreme Court decision in Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) v. Swynson Ltd [2017] UKSC 32, which grappled with these recurring problems in the assessment of damages.

3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation. Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape "scot-free" from liability for an act of victimisation if it is 'astute enough' to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.

Commercial update: Professional negligence - Seb Oram revisits conveyancers' scope of duty. The Supreme Court has recently heard a challenge to the SAAMCO 'scope of duty' principle, in the context of a professional negligence claim against conveyancers. Seb Oram analyses the recent, landmark decision in BPE Solicitors v. Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21 (SC) that considers how the scope of duty principle applies.

3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the trend for lesser sentences in offences of reckless arson.

Two recent appeals against sentences passed for offences of reckless arson have been successful and the sentences passed in each case have been reduced. It appears that this represents a growing trend for lesser sentences for this offence.

Head of 3PB's Family Law Group Hamish Dunlop draws conclusions from The Blue Cross and others v. Heather Ilot [[2017] UKSC 17].

On 15th March 2017, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the appeal of The Blue Cross and others –v- Heather Ilot [[2017] UKSC 17]. The case concerns Mrs Ilot's application brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ('the Act').

Although the Act is now over 40 years old, it has never received substantive review by the most senior Court in the country. This appeal has therefore been eagerly awaited by practitioners in the expectation of guidance in particular in relation to: managing the frequent tension between a Claimant's needs and the testator's wishes; and the definitions of reasonable financial provision and maintenance under the Act.

The case concerns the class of Claimant whose dependency arises in a context of being other than a spouse or civil partner. It obviously remains to be seen whether the Court will now find an opportunity to review the law in cases involving a spouse as Claimant. In the meantime, this case provides specific assistance in relation to 'non-spouse' cases and some general jurisprudence in relation to all claims under the Act.

3PB Barristers' Commercial & Business Law Group brings you the Spring Edition of its Business & Commercial Legal Update Handout. 3PB Barristers' Commercial & Business Law Group brings you the Spring Edition of its Business & Commercial Legal Update Handout.

Topics
1.Incomplete contracts and implied terms: Wells v. Devani [2016] EWCA Civ 1106
2.Directions that override limitation provisions, when restoring a company to the register: Davy v Pickering [2017] EWCA Civ 30
3.Contract: remedies and loss of chance: Scottish Power v BP and McGill v SEM
4.Civil Procedure: costs and security for costs:
a.departing from costs budgets
b.proportionality of costs
c.security for costs
5.Insurance: declining cover because of failure to comply with notification clauses: Zurich Insurance PLC v Maccaferri Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1302
6.Civil Procedure: limitation defences and underpaid court fees Wells v Wood [2016]

3PB Barrister Matthew Cannings examines solicitors' duty to advise on the risk of other contractual meanings. If a solicitor correctly interprets a term within a contract, but fails to advise the client as to the risk of a counter-interpretation, has there been a breach of duty? And can there be a claim for damages?

Matthew Cannings (Call 2006) analyses the most recent contribution of the Court of Appeal to the question of solicitors' duties, in Balogun v Boyes Sutton & Perry (a firm) [2017] EWCA Civ 75.

Esther Lieu analyses I County Council v  TD & Others [2017] EWHC 379 (Fam) for Family Law Week and considers of the difference between care orders and supervision orders.

Esther Lieu analyses W v X (Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility) [2017] EUECJ C-499-15 for Family Law Week

3PB's Graham Gilbert on speeding convictions, avoiding them and their consequences. Graham Gilbert examines the recent sentencing decision of a man who used a device to avoid detection by police speed traps and asks if the penalty handed down was justified.

3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient) [2017] EWCA Civ 34, an appeal from the Court of Protection in which the appellant had been ordered to facilitate MM's return to this jurisdiction, the court having found (on a number of occasions) it to be in MM's best welfare interests to be cared for in the south west of England.

The parties compromised the appeal and the court was asked to approve a consent order, allowing the appeal, on the basis that (i) the order made had become otiose and (ii) it would be futile to subject the appellant to further coercive orders in the face of her continuing obduracy. Case remitted to the court of first instance for the proceedings to be concluded.