Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law


Top stories

Bypassing the Bailiffs

Possession orders are generally obtained in the County Court and enforced by a County Court Bailiff. It is a common source of frustration for claimants that they may have waited several months from issuing a claim to obtaining a possession order, and they can then face delays of up to 12 weeks for a bailiff appointment. In these circumstances claimants often seek advice about using a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO).

Tiuta: lender claims in a bit of a mess

The recent Supreme Court decision in Tiuta International Ltd (In Liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2017] UKSC 77 creates quite a headache for both claimants and defendants in lender claims against professionals where the lender has refinanced an existing loan facility.

Expert witnesses and negligence – Riva Properties Limited v Foster + Partners Limited

Riva Properties Limited v Foster + Partners Limited [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC) is packed with delicious details – a world famous architectural firm versus a business man with aspirations of building a five-star hotel (retaining a bowling alley as required by planning), conducting business from the front room of his home. The disputed factual and legal issues read like a particularly thorny laundry list. Unsurprisingly, Riva has engendered numerous excellent articles and discussions, not least from Hardwicke’s Cat Piercy and Helena White.

Be Warned: Your Advice May Require a Warning!

When should a solicitor provide a warning to their client that the advice they are giving may not be correct? That question was addressed by the Court of Appel in the case of Barker v Baxendale Walker.

Sorry, what was the question again?

Simon Kerry discusses the practicalities of concluding insurance contracts via price comparison websites re Southern Rock Insurance Company Limited v Hadar Hafeez

ATE insurance and security for costs applications: the curse of the pendulum

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I had previously praised the decision of Snowden J at first instance in this case. I described it as a “commendable judgment” which produced a legal equilibrium which was “both more commercially sound and more closely tied to the language of the CPR.” It quite properly now falls on me to set out why, respectfully, I consider that the Court of Appeal has not, as CMS suggests, brought the pendulum to rest at a balanced nadir.

Halsall: bad advice, limitation and tax avoidance

For a cause of action to accrue in negligence, the claimant must show that they have suffered damage; identifying when this has occurred has important implications for the question of whether a limitation defence is available. The recent case of Halsall v Champion Consulting Ltd followed earlier authority suggesting that a cause of action arises when the claimant is put at a ‘commercial disadvantage’. It is suggested that the reasoning in Halsall is inconsistent with earlier authority, in particular the House of Lords’ decision in Law Society v Sephton & Co. The courts should revisit this line of authority and insist on some actual financial loss being suffered before a claim can be brought.