Injunctions: Importance of good conduct

A ‘right to light’ case has lessons for developers wishing to avoid an injunction. Rashpal Soomal explores the nature of the court’s discretion ‘What the Supreme Court has in mind is a sophisticated exercise that requires much more than the traditional “one-size-fits-all” approach to the exercise of injunction discretion.’ Any professional advising developers in particular …
This post is only available to members.

Costs: Less pain more gain

Miranda Whiteley summarises recent guidance on costs from the Technology and Construction Court ‘Proportionality is not all about the relationship between the size of the claim and the claimant’s (or the total) costs bill.’ We have had to wait for nearly two years for some guidance from the courts on the new proportionality test for …
This post is only available to members.

Costs: In the dock – success fees, ATE premiums and the Human Rights Act

Rebecca Andrews-Walker and Clare Arthurs assess the impact of Coventry v Lawrence ‘Many parties have been asking for an adjournment of the detailed assessment of any additional liabilities claimed until the Supreme Court’s decision in Coventry is known.’ Just as the dust was beginning to settle from the changes to funding and recoverability of costs …
This post is only available to members.

The Aarhus Convention: Private nuisance claims

Andrew Francis explains how the Convention can be invoked to help the weaker party protect its costs in David and Goliath situations ‘The Convention is applicable in the English courts (indirectly as part of the UK’s international obligations) as part of our domestic law.’ Imagine the following chain of events. Canchester is a large cathedral …
This post is only available to members.

Marley v Rawlings & anr [2014] UKSC 51

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144

Mr Rawlings (the deceased) and his wife Mrs Rawlings made mirror wills in 1999. Mrs Rawlings died in 2003 and her estate passed to her husband. However, upon the death of Mr Rawlings in 2006, it became apparent that the solicitor involved in the preparation of the wills had accidentally presented Mr and Mrs Rawlings with, and each had signed, the will intended for the other. The validity of the will was subsequently challenged by the deceased’s two sons, who were not entitled under the will but stood to inherit his £70,000 estate under the rules of intestacy. The Supreme Court held...