‘A client’s loss of mental capacity in the course of proceedings does not automatically terminate their solicitor’s retainer, the High Court ruled yesterday.’
Litigation Futures, 6th February 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Section 7 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provided for payments for services by a person who lacked capacity, was not and could not be engaged where the services in question were provided to the mentally incapacitated individual under an arrangement made by the service provider with a local authority exercising its statutory duty under Pt III of the National Assistance Act 1948.’
WLR Daily, 24th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The government’s proposals to increase court fees for commercial cases could lead to claimants facing a fee demand greater than their legal costs, litigators have warned.’
Litigation Futures, 5th February 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in January.’
Family Law Update, 2nd February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Government consulted on a proposal to change the current family legal aid fee payment schemes in October 2013. This document reflects the responses that we have received to the consultation and describes how the Government intends to proceed.’
Ministry of Justice, 31st January 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Dominic Regan predicts the likely civil procedure developments for 2014.’
New Law Journal, 29th January 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Legal fees in family proceedings hit the headlines with Young v Young – the now infamous seven year divorce case which saw £6.5m spent on one side’s legal costs alone.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th January 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Judge Nicholas Francis QC says “untold misery” has resulted from the courtroom battle between Susan and Richard Shield and their children over who owns shares in the family’s RA Shield Holdings company’
Daily Telegraph, 24th January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Lawyers may not always think of themselves as business people; family lawyers in particular are often very client focused, looking to achieve the best outcome for parties who are going through what will often be one of the worst periods of their lives. It can be hard, when weighed down with a busy caseload, to peak above the parapet and take time to reflect on how family law is changing. All businesses change over time, some faster than others. Change within the family law justice system has accelerated at an incredible pace in the last few years and 2014 will be no exception.’
New Law Journal, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The impact assessment (IA) accompanying the Ministry of Justice’s plans to charge some court users fees in excess of cost price is not fit for purpose, a government watchdog has declared.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A costs judge has granted relief from sanctions in a case where the failure to serve notice of funding occurred some 15 months before the introduction of the Jackson reforms.’
Litigation Futures, 20th January 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A law firm whose clients were unaware of the true cost of their conveyancing after being reeled in with low quotes did not take unfair advantage of them, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 20th January 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A painting belonging to an elderly man has been sold for £24,000 to help pay for his care home fees, a council said.’
The Independent, 17th January 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Many payday lenders could be breaking the law by charging excessive default fees to borrowers who miss repayments, according to Which? An investigation by the consumer group revealed that 10 of 17 leading payday lenders have default fees of £20 or more, and four charged £25 and above, with Wonga topping the table at £30.’
The Independent, 13th January 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘On 20 December 2013 judgment was handed down in the first judicial review of a decision of the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO”) to reach a substantive hearing. The judgment will be of interest to lawyers and complainants wishing to challenge unappealable decisions of LeO. It is particularly (though not only) relevant to LeO decisions which direct a reduction in fees. This is an area which, in view of the absence of a limit on the amount by which LeO can reduce fees, has caused particular controversy.’
4 New Square, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Does the Legal Ombudsman have teeth? That was, in effect, the question before the High Court in Layard Horsfall, a judicial review brought by a former solicitor against a decision by the Ombudsman to reduce his fees following a complaint by one of his clients. The Court’s answer was a very clear yes. Where the Ombudsman has made her decision properly, taking relevant factors into account, it is likely to withstand judicial review challenge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025