Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not a free-standing right against discrimination, since it requires that another fundamental right be engaged. As such it stands in contrast to the provisions of the other major general human rights convention to which the UK is a party, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26 of which provides a general right to equal protection of the law without discrimination. However, the European Court of Human Rights has ...
|
Where Counsel were retained to advise on obtaining a Group Litigation Order that had been unsuccessful no duty of care was owed by either Counsel or solicitors to the ATE insurers because no advice had been sought before the issue of the ATE policy. In any event the advice of Counsel and the conduct of solicitors were not negligent.
|
A claim was brought against a guarantor’s former legal advisors following a claim on the guarantee. Where no appropriate legal advice had been received as to the nature and effect of a guarantee given to a bank as a precondition to a loan and the assistant solicitor had nonetheless confirmed that such advice had been given to the bank, that did not found a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The representations as to legal advice had been made to and relied on by the bank alone. In any event ...
|
A mortgage fraud took place whereby the purchaser’s solicitors transferred the mortgage money to a fictitious vendor’s equally fictitious firm of solicitors who made off with the mortgage sums which had been transferred to a supposed client account. The bank sought to recover from the solicitors on several grounds. At a hearing of preliminary issues it was held that the payment away of the mortgage sums before receipt of the completion documents or a solicitor’s undertaking to provide such docum ...
|
In earlier proceedings the Court had held that the surveyor’s valuation of a buy-to-let property was outside the permissible range of valuations in terms of both the likely rental return per month and the open market value. The Claimant had in fact paid just less than the open market value estimated by the surveyors because he had received a ‘gifted deposit’ of 15% and a term as to deferred payment of 10%. The Claimant nonetheless sought to recover the difference between the amount paid for the ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that in a professional negligence claim by a property owner against solicitors who had been instructed in respect of a fraudulent transfer of his property, the cause of action accrued when the fraudulent transfer was completed, not when it was registered. The property owner sustained actual and immediate financial loss upon completion of the sale, in the form of a diminution in the open market value of the property.
|
The Court of Appeal held that the reinstitution of a personal injury claim, which had previously been struck out for a failure to serve the claim form and particulars in time, in a second action outside of limitation, was not an abuse of process.
|
The Court of Appeal handed down guidance as to the correct approach to reg. 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. Ordinarily, the court’s first task was to determine whether reg. 4 applied at all; it applied wherever a residual risk of harm arose and which was more than de minimis or so trivial that it should be ignored. The next question for the court was whether the equipment prevented or adequately controlled the identified risk of injury. Only if that question was ...
|
Interpretation Of Trigger Date For Employers’ Liability Insurers To Indemnify In Mesothelioma Cases
The Court of Appeal held that, in relation to mesothelioma claims, where an employers’ liability insurance policy covered employers for “injury sustained” by their employees in the course of their employment, the insurers’ liability to indemnify the employers was not triggered unless the policy was in force when the disease manifested itself in the form of a tumour. Where the policy covered employers for “disease contracted” by employees in the course of their employment, the insurers’ liability ...
|
Open justice justified naming of privacy claimant
The identity of the Claimant in a claim for a privacy injunction would be revealed (regardless of agreement between the parties to the contrary) as it was impossible to reveal details of the subject matter of the claim without making it likely that the Claimant would be identified and the general principle of open justice provided sufficient public interest in the publishing of a report of the proceedings which identified the Claimant to justify any resulting curtailment of the rights of the Cla ...
|
| 1 |