Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity
|
|
- Peregrine Harrison
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity October 2015
2 Plexus succeed in re-visited Berney v Thomas Saul & Co We first covered this Plexus case two years ago in our September 2013 issue. The matter involves a professional negligence claim against solicitors. The defendant initially sought to strike out the claim on the basis that it was statute barred. More detail on the limitation decision can be found in our previous article here. The case returned to the High Court earlier this year when her Honour Judge Walden-Smith had to determine causation and quantum on the principles of it being a loss of chance case. Background Ms Berney brought a personal injury claim against Ms Liddell as a result of a car accident on 20 April The claim form for the personal injury claim was issued on 12 April 2002, stating that Ms Berney was seeking damages of less than 50,000. The particulars of claim needed to be filed by 12 August 2002 but her solicitors failed to do so. Subsequently, Ms Berney terminated the retainer with Thomas Saul and instructed a new solicitor, Martin Ross. In this issue: Plexus succeed in re-visited Berney v Thomas Saul & Co Interpretation of standard aggregation clause in solicitors professional indemnity policies Another Plexus success story Negligent accountants liable for full loan despite significant repayments Solicitor duped by imposter is held accountable In June 2004, Mr Ross advised Ms Berney that she was vulnerable to an application to strike out partly because the particulars of claim had not been filed in time. Ms Liddell s solicitors indicated they would oppose any application to file the particulars of claim out of time but made a without prejudice settlement offer. Negotiations ensued and Ms Berney accepted an increased offer of 25,000 in November Ms Berney contends that she felt obliged to accept the settlement because of the risk of her claim being struck out and potential adverse costs. Following settlement of the personal injury claim, she brought a professional negligence claim against Thomas Saul. 01
3 After the Court of Appeal limitation decision, Thomas Saul admitted liability and the only issues left to determine were causation and quantum. The case brought by Ms Berney was that, by reason of the admitted failings of her former solicitor, she could not recover the entirety of the damages to which she was entitled, as she had to protect her exposure to a costs liability by accepting Ms Liddell s offer. Ms Berney s schedule of loss exceeded 800,000. A major component of her claim was the allegation that her injuries resulted in her failure to obtain a training contract to qualify as a solicitor, causing a substantial loss of earnings. Judgment Following the principles set out by Simon Brown LJ in Mount v Barker Austin (1998), in order to succeed in her action against the defendant, Ms Berney had to establish that she had lost something of value; namely that she had a real and substantial, rather than merely negligible, prospect of success. The legal burden rested on her to establish that, by settling for 25,000, she lost something of value i.e. she had a real prospect of recovering more. To do so, Ms Berney needed to provide credible and convincing evidence that the injuries and loss sustained from the RTA in 1999 should have resulted in her recovering more than the 25,000 she settled for. In assessing what her damages might have been, had she not settled when she did, the task of the court was to assess the damages that would have been recovered either at the notional trial date or at a notional date for settlement. To assess the likely damages in the RTA claim, the court reviewed the lay witness evidence of both Ms Berney s former solicitors and the evidence of a substantial number of medical experts. This included medical reports from consultant orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, a neurologist, a consultant in anaesthetics and pain management and a psychiatrist. of months. Even on a generous assessment, the judge considered that Ms Berney would recover no more than 9,500 for general damages for the injuries caused by the RTA and potentially a further 3,000 for treatment for her psychiatric conditions. In assessing Ms Berney s claim that, but for the accident, she would have secured a training contract and then full-time work as a solicitor, the court considered the evidence of Mrs Groves, an employment expert. The claimant s evidence did not establish that, but for the accident, she would have been able to obtain a training contract. Significantly, she had unsuccessfully applied for training contracts before the accident. The court therefore held that there was no causal connection between the RTA and Ms Berney s failure to secure a training contract and employment as a solicitor. In all the circumstances, the court concluded that, even on a generous assessment of general and special damages, Ms Berney was unlikely to recover anything more than 10,000 from her RTA claim. Therefore, she did not have a real prospect of recovering more than 25,000 and her professional indemnity claim against her former solicitors failed. Commentary This case confirms the legal principles set out in Mount v Barker Austin in loss of chance claims and also demonstrates the importance of expert evidence in defeating such claims. Ms Berney s claims were undermined by both the extensive medical and employment expert evidence. Despite her solicitor s admitted negligence in handling her personal injury claim, Ms Berney failed to prove that she had a real and substantial prospect of recovering more than 25,000. Susan Berney v Thomas Saul (t/a Thomas Saul & Co) [2015] (QBD) In the court s judgment, Ms Berney could not establish that the RTA was the cause of anything more than a minor whiplash injury which ought to have cleared within a matter 02
4 Interpretation of standard aggregation clause in solicitors professional indemnity policies In the recent case of AIG Europe Limited v OC LLP, the High Court was required to interpret the standard aggregation clause which applies to all English and Welsh solicitors professional indemnity insurance policies. The court interpreted the clause narrowly, declining to treat a number of similar claims as one claim. The insurer was therefore unable to aggregate the claims to enforce a policy limit of 3m per claim. The result is that the losses which are estimated to exceed 10m can now be recovered under the policy. The Law Society requires solicitors insurance policies to comply with the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance for Solicitors and Registered European Lawyers in England and Wales (the MTC). The parties in this case agreed that the governing clause was the aggregation clause in the MTC. The MTC are, in effect, incorporated into the policies of insurance issued by qualifying insurers and therefore have wide application. This decision is of particular interest to professional indemnity insurers and their insured solicitors because until now, there has been no authority on construction of the MTC aggregation provision. Aggregation Aggregation is the term used to describe when several losses are added together for the purposes of making a single claim on an insurance or reinsurance policy. Professional indemnity insurance policies often contain an aggregation clause which can benefit either the insurer or policyholder. Insurers may seek to reduce their potential exposure by reducing the policy limit to claims arising from a similar or related cause. For example, a firm of solicitors may face five similar claims of 500,000 each totalling 2.5m. The insurance policy has an indemnity limit of 1m for each and every claim. If the claims can be aggregated, the insurer will only be liable for 1m in total and the policyholder will need to meet the uninsured balance of 1.5m. However, if the claims cannot be aggregated the insurer will be liable for the full 2.5m. Aggregation clauses can also benefit the policyholder. If each claim must be treated as a separate claim, then the deductible applicable under the relevant policy will apply to each claim. However, if the claims can be aggregated, only one deductible may be payable. Background The claims that AIG sought to aggregate in this matter were very similar in nature. The firm of solicitors in question (OC LLP) faced numerous claims from claimants who invested in the same property development schemes. The trustees of the trusts that are the subject matter of the underlying proceedings, represent the claimants in the underlying proceedings. The claims arose from the development of holiday homes in Turkey and Morocco. The vast majority of the 214 investors were private individuals. An elaborate scheme had been devised with a view to protecting the interests of the investors and thereby encouraging them to invest. The investors accused the solicitors of failing to put in place effective security arrangements and allege that as a result, the investors lost their investments. Several causes of action were relied upon but they all identified similar acts and omissions. It was intended that the investment monies would be protected by only releasing sums from an escrow account once a cover test was met and by establishing adequate security, in one case over land and in another over shares. AIG sought a declaration that certain underlying claims were to be aggregated and thus dealt with as a single claim under 03
5 the insurance policy. The cover was in respect of all loss resulting from any claim for any civil liability of any insured which arises from the performance of or failure to perform legal services. The aggregation clause within the MTC was rewritten following the decision of the House of Lords in Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings Ltd v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Co Ltd (2003). The terms of clause 2.5 of the MTC read as follows: The insurance may provide that, when considering what may be regarded as one claim for the purposes of the limits contemplated by clauses 2.1 and 2.3 : (a) all claims against any one or more insured arising from: (i) one act or omission; (ii) one series of related acts or omissions; (iii) the same act or omission in a series of related matters or transactions; (iv) similar acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions and (b) all claims against one or more insured arising from one matter or transaction will be regarded as one claim. Discussion There is no authority on the true construction of clause 2.5 and therefore the court s task in this case was to construe and apply clause 2.5. Aggregation clauses permit two or more claims to be treated as a single claim where they are linked by a unifying factor of some kind. The choice of language used to express that unifying factor is of critical importance. The unifying factor may be express or it may be necessary to imply one. Mr Justice Teare noted that the principle underlying the MTC is to ensure that solicitors are financially able to compensate their clients where claims are made against them. However, it would be too simplistic to say when construing the MTC, that the construction which should be adopted is that which gives the public the greatest level of protection. The court should construe the aggregation clause in a neutral manner, neither predisposed to assist the public nor predisposed to assist the insurer. Judgment Firstly, the court had to determine whether the claims arose from similar acts or omissions. The court held that this was a real and substantial degree of similarity, neither fanciful nor insubstantial. The aim of the aggregation clause was to permit claims to be aggregated for the purpose of applying the limit of the insurer s liability per claim. In all the claims, the local property developer could not pay the vendor. In those circumstances the solicitors failed to provide effective security so that the cover test was not properly applied. Thus, after the investors monies had been released, the investors were exposed to loss in the event that the developments failed. It therefore followed, in the language of the clause, that all the claims arose out of similar acts or omissions. The court accepted that they were not identical but they did not have to be. Secondly, the court had to interpret the meaning of the phrase in a series of related matters or transactions. This phrase serves to limit the scope of the aggregation clause which would otherwise be very wide. The phrase embodies the unifying factor (or an important part thereof) which makes it appropriate to aggregate claims. Mr Justice Teare concluded that the most natural meaning of the phrase in the context of a solicitors insurance policy is a series of matters or transactions that are in some way dependent on each other rather than independent of each other. The court decided that although the claims arose out of similar acts or omissions, they did not meet the requirement 04
6 of being in a series of related transactions because the terms of the transactions were not conditional or dependent on each other. Therefore the court concluded that the claims were not to be aggregated as one claim. Commentary The decision is relevant to all professional indemnity policies where the MCT aggregation clause is incorporated. It will also be persuasive in respect of any other policies with aggregation clauses which require that the claims arise from a series of related matters or transactions. Following the facts of this case, this will be a tough threshold for insurers to overcome. We understand that leave to appeal has been given by Mr Justice Teare. AIG Europe Limited v OC LLP (formerly The International Law Partnership LLP) and Others [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm) 05
7 Another Plexus success story Plexus recently had further success in defeating a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors in the case of Dzekova v Thomas Eggar LLP. The defendant successfully appealed against Master Eastman s earlier refusal to set aside service of the claim form. On appeal, the court struck out the claim on the basis that the address for service was not compliant with rule 6.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The case illustrates why solicitors should clearly understand rule 6.8 of the CPR and always ensure that the service of any proceedings is compliant with this rule. Background The claim arose out of an alleged accident in October In October 2007, proceedings in a personal injury claim were issued against the alleged tortfeasors. Shortly before the personal injury proceedings were due to be served, the claimant submitted a web-based request to the defendant, Thomas Eggar LLP, asking for its assistance in pursuing her claim. Ironically, the underlying professional negligence claim also related to the service of proceedings. The allegation against the defendant was that they wrongly advised the claimant to apply for an extension of time to serve the claim form, rather than serving the claim form and applying for an extension to serve the particulars of claim, schedule of loss and medical evidence. In fact, extensions of time were obtained, but the alleged tortfeasors had those extensions of time for service set aside and permission to appeal was refused. A professional negligence claim was then brought against Thomas Eggar LLP. The claimant s solicitors issued proceedings against Thomas Eggar a few days prior to the expiry of the six year limitation period. As the claim form expired imminently, her solicitors were keen to ensure that it arrived at the defendant s offices in time. Therefore, Mr Cooney, a representative from the claimant s solicitors began a series of phone calls to the defendant s insurers and the defendant firm to ascertain their address for service, as the firm had more than one office. Mr Cooney was unable to speak to the solicitor he had previously dealt with and spoke instead to Ms Hannah Foulger, the PA to the managing partner. Ms Foulger provided the address of the managing partner at the defendant s Crawley office. Appeal The appeal before Mr Justice Stewart stood or fell on whether the defendant had given an address for the purpose of being served with the proceedings. Rule 6.8 CPR provides as follows: Subject to rules 6.5(1) and 6.7 and the provisions of Section IV of this Part, and except where any other rule or practice direction makes different provision (a) the defendant may be served with the claim form at an address at which the defendant resides or carries on business within the UK and which the defendant has given for the purpose of being served with the proceedings If the defendant has not given such an address, then CPR 6.9 requires the claim form to be served; the defendant being a company registered in England at the principal office of the company; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction which has a real connection with the claim. It was common ground that the Crawley office did not come within the provisions of CPR 6.9. Judgment On the evidence, Mr Justice Stewart did not accept that Ms Foulger had given an address for the purpose of being served with the proceedings. Mr Cooney alleged that he had asked for an address to serve proceedings and confirmation of the principal place 06
8 of business. Ms Foulger s evidence was that she did not know the difference between an address for service and an address to send general documents. Ms Foulger had said that she did not know what the principal place of business was, but that she asked if the documents were confidential, and when Mr Cooney confirmed they were, she gave the address for the managing partner. Stewart J found that there was no compliance with rule 6.8 (a). On the question of authority, no-one at the firm had represented to the claimant s solicitor that Ms Foulger had authority to give an address for the purpose of being served with the proceedings, pursuant to rule 6.8 (a). The fact that she had tried to be helpful, could not impute to the firm any representation by words or conduct that she had authority. The appeal was allowed and service of the claim was set aside and the claim was dismissed. Commentary Ironically, the claimant will probably now bring another professional negligence claim against a second firm of solicitors. The case is unfortunately an example of claimant solicitors leaving it right until the end of the limitation period, to issue and serve proceedings. It demonstrates the importance of a clear understanding of the Civil Procedure Rules on service of a claim form and why it is so important to resolve any potential service issues well within the limitation period. Dzekova v Thomas Eggar LLP [2015] EWHC 2600 (QB) 07
9 Negligent accountants liable for full loan despite significant repayments In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Swynson v Lowick Rose (2015), the court had to quantify the loss recoverable by a lender from a negligent firm of accountants who failed to do proper due diligence on the borrower. In reliance upon the negligent due diligence report, Swynson loaned 15m and the court found that the accountants were still liable for the full amount of the loan despite significant repayments having been made as a result of a re-financing agreement. The majority of the loan was repaid by utilising money lent to the borrower by the owner of Swynson. However, the court held that the repayment was a collateral matter which did not go to reduce the damages recoverable from the negligent accountants. The decision will be of interest to lenders, professional advisers and their insurers. Background The claimant company, Swynson, was owned indirectly by Mr Hunt. In October 2006 Swynson lent 15m to a company called Evo Medical Solutions Limited (EMSL) to enable it to facilitate a management buyout of Evo, an American company specialising in the distribution of medical devices in the USA. The 2006 loan was made by Swynson in reliance upon a due diligence report prepared by an accountancy firm, now known as Lowick Rose LLP. By mid 2007 it was clear that Evo was experiencing cash flow problems and at risk of financial collapse without further investment. In late 2007 Mr Hunt caused Swynson to lend a further 1.75m to EMSL. In order to protect the initial investment, Mr Hunt felt obliged to support Evo until it could be floated on the stock exchange or financed by a private equity investor. Mr Hunt therefore decided to provide to Evo, through a loan to EMSL by Swynson, a further 3m in June Mr Hunt also gained a majority interest in EMSL. At the end of 2008, there was a re-financing of the 2006 and 2007 loans. Part of the reason for the re-financing was to mitigate tax. Mr Hunt lent 18m to EMSL. EMSL then paid Swynson 17m, being the total amount due under the 2006 and 2007 loans including interest. This left only the 2008 loan outstanding. In 2011 Evo s business was wound down and the refinancing loan was never repaid. Swynson then brought proceedings against the accountants for professional negligence. Lower court decision During the course of the trial the defendant conceded negligence and that there was a causal link between the negligence and the decision of Swynson to make the 2006 loan. The accounting report was negligent in that it failed to report that there was a $3-$4m adverse difference between Evo s actual and forecast working capital. The defendant admitted negligence, but argued that it should only be liable for the outstanding 2008 loan because EMSL had repaid the 2006 and 2007 loans. The lower court was aware that the corporate veil should not be pierced and held that the defendant owed no duty of care to Mr Hunt. The trial judge found that the defendant s letter of engagement had capped liability to 15m and this point was not appealed. Rose J held that the repayment, effected as it was by the 2008 partial re-finance, was collateral to the loss caused by the defendant s breach of duty (or in old legal terminology: res inter alios acta), and did not extinguish Swynson s loss in respect of the 2006 and 2007 loans. The Latin term summarises a legal doctrine which holds that a contract cannot adversely affect the rights of one who is not a party 08
10 to the contract. She accordingly awarded damages against the defendant in the amount of those loans and the 2008 loan, subject to the cap. The defendant appealed. Appeal Court decision A majority of the Court of Appeal (Longmore and Sales LLJ, Davis LJ dissenting) held that the repayment of the loans pursuant to the 2008 partial re-finance, did not need to be taken into account when quantifying Swynson s claim against the accountants. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the defendant was liable for the full amount of the loan, subject to the 15m cap, despite the fact that Swynson had been repaid. The CA confirmed that it is established law that an innocent party, who claims for breach of contract, is under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. This may result in the loss being partly or wholly avoided. The question is then whether that avoided loss should be taken into account in assessing damages. It may also be the case that a claimant s loss is partly or wholly avoided despite him taking no steps to mitigate his damages. The test is that if the transaction giving rise to the avoided loss arises by virtue of circumstances which are collateral to the breach of contract, the avoided loss need not be brought into account. However, if the transaction giving rise to the avoided loss arises out the consequences of the breach and in the ordinary course of business, it is to be taken into account. Commentary The majority decision appears to have been strongly influenced by public policy considerations. LJ Sales relying on Parry v Cleaver (1970) considered that it would be contrary to the ordinary man s sense of justice, and therefore contrary to public policy that the funding Mr Hunt was driven to provide to help Swynson in the difficult position in which it found itself, as a result of the defendant s negligence, should be treated as benefiting the defendant rather than Swynson alone. However, Lord Justice Davis provided a well reasoned dissenting judgment holding that the defendant should only be liable for the 2008 loan. He reasoned that one could not simply disregard the actual form which the transactions took and ignore the corporate structures involved in order to achieve what may appear (to some) as a just result. LJ Davis disagreed with the majority view that the contrary approach was merely to disregard technicalities. As he saw it, the form here was the substance and it was evident that in the circumstances of the case, Swynson suffered no loss. Although fact specific, the majority decision is a worrying one for professional advisers and their insurers and we shall keep you posted on any further appeal. Swynson Limited v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation formerly known as Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) [2015] EWCA Civ 629 If a debt incurred pursuant to negligent advice given to a lender is repaid, the repayment must ordinarily be taken into account when assessing damages, but that is not an inflexible rule. In this case, there was no prospect of Swynson selling the debt to a third party for anything like its value, if indeed a buyer could be found at all. The transaction was peculiar to Swynson in that Mr Hunt would not have funded the repayment of the loan on those terms for any other company. It may be that the 2008 partial re-finance arose because of the defendant s breach. but in no way did it arise in the ordinary course of business. Therefore the repayment should not be taken into account when assessing damages. 09
11 Solicitor duped by imposter is held accountable The recent matter of LSC Finance Ltd v Abensons Law Ltd (t/a Abensons solicitors) involves a mortgage fraud and is another unfortunate example of a solicitor being duped by a borrower client. The claimant lender sought damages for alleged breaches of undertakings (and thus breach of contract), negligence, breach of trust and breach of warranty of authority against the defendant solicitors firm. The solicitors, Abensons, had undertaken that certain representations made fraudulently had been true. Background The claimant company, LSC, was a commercial lender which provided secured short-term bridging loans to borrowers for commercial purposes. It was common ground that LSC had been the victim of a mortgage fraud, after lending Eur169,000 to a purported client of Abensons, known as Mrs Gail Boddice. It was intended that the loan would be secured by (i) a legal mortgage over a residential buy-to-let property in Chester, which was to be executed by the sole proprietor, Mrs Boddice, and (ii) a personal guarantee from Mrs Boddice s husband. Although the loan was released by LSC to Abensons (A), and transferred by A into a joint account at Barclays in the names of Mr and Mrs Boddice, the envisaged security was never effected. It was apparent that LSC had been the victim of a mortgage fraud most probably perpetrated by Mr Boddice. It appeared that Mrs Boddice had been impersonated and had not approved the transfer. The defendant firm, who acted on behalf of the purported Mrs Boddice, agreed either to hold the original, validly executed security prior to completion or to provide an undertaking of the same. The defendant provided an undertaking confirming execution of a legal charge by Mrs Boddice in respect of the property. 010 In making the loan, LSC and its solicitors, Woodcocks, had relied on the defendant solicitors undertakings and other confirmations provided, before the loan monies were advanced. LSC alleged that such matters gave rise to binding obligations on A which were breached and, as a result, LSC suffered loss and damage for which they were said to be liable. There was no suggestion that the defendant solicitors firm was knowingly involved in any way in setting up the mortgage fraud. Judgment The Chancery Division held that the claims for breach of undertaking and breach of warranty of authority were made out against the defendant who had failed to verify the property owner s identity and signature when executing a charge over the property. It also held that there had been a breach of a duty of care owed in tort by the defendant to LSC and breach of a Quistclose resulting trust claim. The judge found that the defendant solicitor purported to certify Mr and Mrs Boddice s identities by checking their passports. However, he did not do enough to check the genuineness of the signatures on the sole legal charge and the joint transfer documents. The duty of care was clearly breached in relation to A s failure to properly verify execution of the sole legal charge from the imposter Mrs Boddice. Mrs Boddice did not sign these documents in the presence of the defendant and the signature bore no resemblance to her signature in previous documents. The defendant should have made further enquiries as to the authenticity of the signature and insisted upon seeing the woman who had previously represented herself to him as Mrs Boddice. The judge was satisfied that the defendant was negligent in relation to accepting both the sole legal charge and the joint transfer as genuinely executed documents. Woodcocks were clearly relying upon A, as solicitors for the proposed borrowers, in relation to the execution of the mortgage documentation to be provided by A s client or clients. The
12 risk of imposture was one which the defendant assumed, rather than it falling upon LSC as the lender. The judge however went on to state that the difficulty with the claim in tort, however, was in establishing causation. Unlike the strict obligation assumed by the defendant in its undertaking to hold a validly executed legal charge from Mrs Boddice, a duty of care required them only to take reasonable care in that regard. Hodge J was not satisfied that there was enough to establish causation. It may well be that, if the defendant had insisted upon seeing, or speaking to, the person who had masqueraded as Mrs Boddice, Mr Boddice would not have been able to produce her; but he may have been able to do so. The court made no decision on the applicable test for causation. It was sufficient that the claimant s claim succeeded on breach of the undertaking, on breach of warranty of authority and the additional breach of resulting trust claim. Accordingly, judgment was given for the claimant. Commentary The court appears to have adopted a strict approach in this matter. However, the decision should be considered in the context of the specific facts of this case and the judge s scathing comments regarding Mr Abenson s witness evidence at trial. Hodge J remarked that Mr Abenson was a wholly unsatisfactory and unreliable witness. At times I had to pinch myself to remember that he was a qualified solicitor of longstanding and experience. He is by far the worst solicitor witness I have ever seen giving evidence in the witness box. We understand that permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been sought. Other publications If you would like to receive any of the below, please indicating which you would like to receive. Weekly: Legal Watch: Personal Injury Monthly: Legal Watch: Property Risks & Coverage Quarterly: Legal Watch: Disease Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity To unsubscribe from the Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity newsletter please crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com Contact us For more information please contact: Karen Scott, Knowledge Management Lawyer T: E: karen.scott@plexuslaw.co.uk Jeremy Newman, Partner T: E: jeremy.newman@plexuslaw.co.uk LSC Finance Ltd v Abensons Law Ltd (t/a Abensons solicitors) [2015] EWHC 1163 (Ch) The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC Registered office: 12 Dingwall Road, Croydon, CR0 2NA. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.
Legal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 23rd July 2015 Issue: 071 Part 36 In the commercial claim of Dutton and others v Minards and others [Lawtel 20/07/2015] we have yet another case dealing with Part 36. Former
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury. February 2014 Issue 007
Legal Watch: Personal Injury February 2014 Issue 007 Civil Procedure/Compliance with Directions Almost every day brings more post Jackson/Mitchell cases. Although these are non-personal injury cases we
More informationPg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 1st April 2015 Issue: 058 Limitation Insurers who may be faced with claims for historical sex abuse will gain some comfort from the decision in RE v GE (2015) EWCA Civ 287.
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 19th February 2015 Issue: 052 Civil procedure/expert witnesses One of the concerns practitioners have in the post Jackson era is the extent to which the courts will allow time
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd October 2014 Issue: 034 Causation/pre-existing condition The case of Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and another (2014) EWHC 3016 (QB) deals
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 15th January 2015 Issue: 047 Public liability The difference between a local authority s powers and its duties was examined in Foulds (Deceased) v Devon County Council [Lawtel
More informationLegal Watch: Professional Indemnity. May 2015 Issue 001
Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity May 2015 Issue 001 Surveyors succeed in defeating lender s novel causation argument In the recent case of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors
More informationTEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance
TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance In return for the payment of the Premium specified in the Schedule and based on any Information that
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 1st May 2015 Issue: 061 Ex turpi causa McCracken (Protected Party) v Smith (1); MIB (2); Bell (3) (2015) EWCA Civ 380 is the latest in a line of cases looking at the defence
More informationPERSONAL INJURIES BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL
PERSONAL INJURIES BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR USE AFTER 31 JANUARY 2013 PLEASE NOTE: THESE TERMS
More informationSteen & Co Employment Solicitors
Steen & Co Employment Solicitors COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS This is a note about some of the issues involved in Compromise Agreements. It is not a substitute for individual advice that, of course, we will give
More informationLegal Watch Personal Injury
Legal Watch Personal Injury February 2014 Issue 006 Civil Procedure/Costs budgeting With costs budgeting proving to be the current hot potato, it is not helpful that two versions of a similar court form
More informationKEMP & KEMP PRACTICE NOTES: INSOLVENT DEFENDANTS PART II SIMON EDWARDS
KEMP & KEMP PRACTICE NOTES: INSOLVENT DEFENDANTS PART II SIMON EDWARDS 1. In the September issue of Kemp News I dealt with the mechanics of starting or continuing proceedings against an insolvent defendant.
More informationLIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT
LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions
More informationAt first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just
TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just another slightly dreary solicitors negligence case where
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 5th June 2014 Issue: 021 Civil Procedure/Service Of Claim Form There has been a run of cases relating to the service of claim forms and this continues with Kaki v National
More informationPRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013 Title Number I INTRODUCTION Definitions Para 1.1 Preamble Para 2.1 Aims Para 3.1 Scope Para 4.1 II GENERAL
More informationCase Note by Paul Ryan February 2014
Case Note by Paul Ryan February 2014 Settlement Group Pty Ltd v Purcell Partners [2013] VSCA 370 Catchwords: Mortgages Real property Refinancing Multiple mortgages to be refinanced Concurrent transactions
More informationRE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
More informationQBE European Operations Professional liability
QBE European Operations Professional liability Disclosure of insurance details revisited QBE Professional Liability Disclosure of insurance details revisited/november 2013 1 Disclosure of insurance details
More informationSecurity for payment: bonds and guarantees five pitfalls and protection
Article This article first appeared in a slightly different form in Civil Engineering Surveyor, July 2010 Security for payment: bonds and guarantees five By Jonathan Hosie In the current economic climate,
More informationProvince of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
More informationMis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Claims Pack
Mis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Claims Pack Debt Clear Solutions is delighted to enclose an information and application pack that will enable us to reclaim any mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance
More informationConditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know
Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying
More informationGreene Wood & McLean v Templeton Insurance Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 07/10
JUDGMENT : Mr. Justice Teare : Commercial Court. 10 th July 2008. 1. This is an application by the Defendant to set aside the order made by Walker J. on 14 March 2008 in which he granted permission for
More informationA brief guide to professional negligence claims
A brief guide to professional negligence claims Contents Introduction Do I have a claim? Important considerations Pre-action protocol procedure Court proceedings Contact information Introduction Claims
More informationCONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE
Disclaimer In all cases solicitors must ensure that any agreement with a client is made in compliance with their professional duties, the requirements of the SRA and any statutory requirements depending
More informationTERMS OF BUSINESS AGREEMENT - INSURANCE BROKING
1. BROKER INFORMATION TERMS OF BUSINESS AGREEMENT - INSURANCE BROKING Stephenson s (2000) Ltd T/As Cooke & Mason, Manor House 3 Low Moor Road Lincoln LN6 3JY is an independent Chartered Insurance Broker.
More informationLIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation
More informationTHE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS
THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS Introduction In professional negligence proceedings against a solicitor, the court s aim is to determine what amount of money would put the plaintiff in the position he would
More informationBefore : Mr Justice Morgan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 3848 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION 1 Case No: HC12A02388 Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: Tuesday,
More informationLimiting Liability in Contracts. Thursday, 23 May 2013
Limiting Liability in Contracts Thursday, 23 May 2013 Agenda Exclusion and Limitation Clauses Financial Cap on Liability Common Law Controls Indirect and Consequential Loss Statutory Controls Entire Agreement
More informationAssessing and purchasing the appropriate level of cover: a guide to top-up or excess layer insurance:
Assessing and purchasing the appropriate level of cover: a guide to top-up or excess layer insurance: July 2015 2015 The Law Society. All rights reserved. Contents Introduction... 3 Status of this guide...
More informationPRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph 1.1 Preamble Paragraph 2.1 Aims Paragraph 3.1 Scope Paragraph
More informationCosts Law Update Lamont v Burton
- The Defendant Costs Specialists Costs Law Update Lamont v Burton The Court of Appeal s decision last week in Lamont v Burton [2007] EWCA Civ 429 is likely to have serious costs implications for defendants
More informationIN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE. - and
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON Action No. 0403-12898 B E T W E E N : TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE Plaintiffs - and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit WILLIAM MOSHER; LYNN MOSHER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 19, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationAdvice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction
Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COULSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : PANTELLI ASSOCIATES LIMITED.
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-10-332 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
More informationInformation sheet Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims
Information sheet Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims You have received this information sheet as it is likely that your claim will proceed
More information1) Uninsured Loss Recovery An event causing damage to the insured vehicle and/or personal property in or on it
MOTORING LEGAL SOLUTIONS MCE ASSIST THIS IS YOUR INSURANCE POLICY This policy is evidence of the contract between you and the Insurer. Following an Insured Event the Insurer will pay the Insured s Legal
More informationA guide to top-up or excess layer insurance:
A guide to top-up or excess layer insurance: March 2013 2013 The Law Society. All rights reserved. Contents Introduction... 3 Status of this guide... 3 Factors to consider in choosing an appropriate level
More informationTrustees liability 8.0 /35
Trustees liability 8.0 /35 Trustees liability /8.1 Target Holdings v Redferns (1996) House of Lords Extent of trustees liability for equitable relief A finance company instructed a firm of solicitors to
More informationBeattie v Secretary of State for Social Security,
CASE ANALYSIS Income Support Capital to be treated as income - Structured settlement of damages for personal injury - Whether periodical payments that arise from the annuity are to be treated as income
More informationConditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know
Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying
More informationRoad Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (RAFA)
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (RAFA) Topic: Roads and Public Liability IN A CALABASH Introduction Road transportation is the major mode of transportation in South Africa. Despite a number of road laws
More informationCHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
CHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY
More informationscrutiny: Essential Guide to CRU Benefits and Appeals
scrutiny: Essential Guide to CRU Benefits and Appeals Introduction In writing this guide, we had in mind a broad spectrum of readers from the novice (for whom some of this may be new) through to the more
More informationHickman v Lapthorn [2006] ADR.L.R. 01/17
JUDGMENT : The Hon. Mr. Justice Jack : QBD. 17 th January 2006 1. This was a claim against solicitors and counsel for negligence in advising the claimant to settle at too low a value his claim arising
More informationThe New CFA and DBA Regime. Simon Edwards
The New CFA and DBA Regime Simon Edwards CFAs post 1 April 2013 Section 58A (6) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (CLSA) provides that a costs order made in proceedings may not include provision requiring
More informationApplication for Credit (Business Account)
Application for Credit (Business Account) APPLICANT INFORMATION Structure Public Company Proprietory Company Sole Proprietor Partnership Company Trading As Trustee for ACN / ABN Phone Fax Mobile Email
More informationMOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT
Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s
More informationMurrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following
More informationFINANCIAL SUPERVISION ACT 1988 LIFE ASSURANCE (COMPENSATION OF POLICYHOLDERS) REGULATIONS 1991 PART 1 INTRODUCTION
FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ACT 1988 LIFE ASSURANCE (COMPENSATION OF POLICYHOLDERS) REGULATIONS 1991 In exercise of the powers conferred on the Treasury by section 21 of the Financial Supervision Act 1988(a),
More informationLEVEL 4 - UNIT 7 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 4 - UNIT 7 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and
More information- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marshall. - and - The Price Partnership Solicitors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 4256 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Case No: 1HQ/13/0265 1HQ/13/0689 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL BEFORE: Wednesday, 2
More informationLEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS
LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 July 2014. 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.
More informationLimiting liability for professional firms
Limiting liability for professional firms Introduction Disputes can arise between providers of professional services and their clients or other (third) parties for a number of reasons. Limiting or excluding
More informationMotor Legal Expenses Insurance
Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Policy Document Certificate of Insurance This insurance is underwritten by Inter Partner Assistance SA and managed on their behalf by Arc Legal
More informationAre you covered? Coverage issues for construction professionals Part 2
Professional Risks - Construction Part 2 June 2015 Are you covered? Coverage issues for construction professionals Part 2 In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationPersonal Property Title Insurance Owner s Policy (PPT-1)
Personal Property Title Insurance (PPT-1) Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this Policy must be given to the Company at the address
More informationOctagon Insurance Legal Expenses Policy
Octagon Insurance Legal Expenses Policy 1 2 This Octagon insurance policy is underwritten by Inter Partner Assistance SA and administered on their behalf by Arc Legal Assistance Limited. The following
More informationTitle 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 67 BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Savings 3 Apportionment of liability where contributory negligence 4 Defence of common employment abolished
More informationProfessional Indemnity Insurance Glossary of Terms
Professional Indemnity Insurance Glossary of Terms Index Aggregation of claims Automatic reinstatement Average provision Cancellation Civil liability Claim Claims made Consumer protection legislation Continuous
More informationAccount means a player s account, maintained on the CRM system to enable the player to participate in the weekly Lottery.
YORKSHIRE AIR AMBULANCE LOTTERY TERMS & CONDITIONS OF PLAY INTRODUCTION These Terms and Conditions apply to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Lottery. By playing the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Lottery players accept
More informationBar Council response to the Reducing Legal Costs in Clinical Negligence Claims pre-consultation paper
Bar Council response to the Reducing Legal Costs in Clinical Negligence Claims pre-consultation paper 1. This is the response of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales (the Bar Council) to
More informationCovering Disease costs NIHL and pre-action disclosure date. Part 36 offers in multi-defendant cases and quantum in mesothelioma claims
This is the first of our revamped monthly updates with its focus on disease issues. The aim is to provide a quick snapshot of topical issues and recent cases for the busy Disease Practitioner. We always
More informationAPPLICATION FORM. 1. Please read the brochure and the whole of this application form, which has 10 pages.
APPLICATION FORM managed inheritance SERVICE 1. Please read the brochure and the whole of this application form, which has 10 pages. 2. Next complete pages 2 to 5, signing on pages 2, 4 and 5. Make a copy
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Doig et al v. Laurand Holdings Ltd et al Date: 20010608 2001 BCSC 780 Docket: C944200 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ARTHUR DOIG AND ARMA HOLDINGS LTD.
More informationAccidents at Work. Everything you need to know
Accidents at Work Everything you need to know Falling from ladders, slipping on a wet floor, lifting a heavy item, cutting yourself on a machine. Even in the 21st Century the workplace is still dangerous
More informationMIB Uninsured Agreement
MIB Uninsured Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 3rd July 2015 between the SECRETARY OF STATE ( the Secretary of State ) and the MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU ( MIB ), whose registered office is for the time
More informationOpen, Calderbank and Part 36 offers considerations and tactics
Open, Calderbank and Part 36 offers considerations and tactics PJ Kirby QC 1. Introduction 1.1 In detailed assessment proceedings there will, as in all disputes, be advantages in settling the matter in
More informationPERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
More informationTerms of Business Effective 25 November 2014
Terms of Business Effective 25 November 2014 TERMS OF BUSINESS Effective 25 November 2014 Contents 1 Our contract with you 1 2 Wake Smith LLP 1 3 Scope of our services 1 4 Parties 1 5 Responsibility for
More informationGADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS FUNDING THE CLAIM
FUNDING THE CLAIM This is an important issue because we know that many people are understandably very worried about incurring legal costs. But there is no need to worry about costs. Because of changes
More informationExpert evidence. A guide for expert witnesses and their clients (Second edition)
Expert evidence A guide for expert witnesses and their clients (Second edition) Addendum, June 2009 1. Introduction 1.1 The second edition of this Guide was published in October 2003, in order to set out
More informationPre action protocol for low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents
http://websvr/textimagecreator (Text image creator to change heading) Pre action protocol for low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph
More informationFIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part
FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount
More information4. In Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd [2004] UKPC 39 Lord Brown clarified:
Third Party Costs Orders against Solicitors 1. This article discusses the rise in applications against solicitors for third party costs orders, where solicitors have acted on conditional fee agreements
More information3.6. Please also note, unless your policy confirms otherwise, the rights under your policy may only be pursued in an English court.
Terms of business agreement - commercial customers M & N Insurance Service Limited Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority No: 305837. Registered Office: 248 Hendon Way London NW4 3NL
More informationClinical Negligence. Issue of proceedings through to Trial
Clinical Negligence Issue of proceedings through to Trial Lees Solicitors LLP 44/45 Hamilton Square Birkenhead Wirral CH41 5AR Tel: 0151 647 9381 Fax: 0151 649 0124 e-mail: newclaim@lees.co.uk 1 1 April
More informationIn these conditions "the Company" means Pro Formance Metals Limited
Terms and Conditions of Sale In these conditions "the Company" means Pro Formance Metals Limited 1. ALL CONTRACTS OF SALE - incorporate these Terms and Conditions. Any variation of these Terms and Conditions
More informationLeathes Prior Solicitors Terms of Business
Leathes Prior Solicitors Terms of Business 1. Contacting us Our reception is open from 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, excluding Bank Holidays. Arrangements can be made to see clients outside these
More informationPRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph 1.1 Preamble Paragraph 2.1 Aims Paragraph 3.1 Scope Paragraph
More informationRisks in International Consultancy Appointments: The FIDIC White Book
Risks in International Consultancy Appointments: The FIDIC White Book An increasing number of UK based consultants are involved in international projects. Given the forecasted growth in global construction
More informationTerms and Conditions. Our Services Explained
Our Services Explained Winn Solicitors provide a one-stop-shop service for innocent victims of road traffic accidents and other accidents, who need help to recover compensation and/or other services. In
More informationCREDIT ACCOUNT APPLICATION 30 DAYS
CUSTOMER DETAILS CREDIT ACCOUNT APPLICATION 30 DAYS Ramaco Pty Ltd ATF The Anderson Family Trust T/A (ABN 17 854 733 680) 46-48 Yumborra Road DALBY QLD 4405 Ph: 07 4662 3866 Fax: 07 4669 6394 admin@afgrifoodsaustralia.com.au
More informationNew Build Problems the Professional Consultant s Certificate
New Build Problems the Professional Consultant s Certificate Paul Butt examines the issue of warranties or certificates for new-build developments. He highlights why conveyancers need to ensure their developer
More informationClient Information. Terms & Conditions. www.nockolds.co.uk
Client Information Terms & Conditions? www.nockolds.co.uk 1. Introduction As from 1 June 2012 all work we do for you is governed by these terms of business. Attached to these terms is a letter that contains
More informationGUIDE TO FUNDING YOUR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIM
GUIDE TO FUNDING YOUR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIM Because of the expert knowledge and depth of investigation required in order to bring a successful claim, negligence litigation can be expensive. Understandably,
More informationProfessional Indemnity Proposal Form. for. Finance & Mortgage Brokers
Professional Indemnity Proposal Form for Finance & Mortgage Brokers Address: 5/3352 Pacific Highway Postal: PO Box 976 Springwood QLD 4127 Springwood QLD 4127 Phone: 07 3387 2800 Fax: 07 3208 2200 Email:
More informationSTANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORK TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORK TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT
More informationMaster Policy. Solicitors Indemnity Insurance 2006/07 Master Policy and Certificate of Insurance
Master Policy Queensland Law Society Incorporated Solicitors Professional Indemnity Insurance Master Policy 2006 2007 1 The Insurer agrees with the Queensland Law Society Incorporated (hereinafter and
More informationDraft letter from Expert Witness to Instructing Solicitors and Agencies setting out Terms and Conditions of Appointment
DISCLAIMER These draft T&Cs and the accompanying notes are intended to be a guide only to assist the expert witness in considering the most relevant matters in terms of their contract to provide services
More informationTICKETMASTER SINGLE EVENT TICKETING AGREEMENT. Ticketmaster NZ Limited. ( Ticketmaster ) and. ( Client )
TICKETMASTER SINGLE EVENT TICKETING AGREEMENT between Ticketmaster NZ Limited ( Ticketmaster ) and ( Client ) Event Venues THIS AGREEMENT is made the 2011. BETWEEN TICKETMASTER NZ LIMITED, Level 1, Citibank
More informationHER MAJESTY S COURTS SERVICE (HMCS) Part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) CIVIL COURT FEES A RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS
HER MAJESTY S COURTS SERVICE (HMCS) Part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) CIVIL COURT FEES A RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS June 2007 The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
More information