Subscribe to our latest updates, reports and upcoming events. Subscribe >
From To
Subscribe to our latest updates, reports and events.
SubscribeShowing 1 - 6 of 6
Sort by
Case review 15/01/2021
Our previous article considered the High Court’s decision in Rowe & Ors v Ingenious Media Holdings plc & Ors. The Court of Appeal (CoA) has now provided guidance on when a court should exercise its discretion to require a voluntary cross-undertaking in damages as a condition of requiring a claimant or their commercial litigation funder to provide security for costs.
Case review 10/02/2020
The High Court has handed down judgment in the multi-party Ingenious Litigation (Rowe & Ors v Ingenious Media Holdings plc & Ors [10.02.20]), which provides further guidance on the circumstances in which litigation funders may be required to provide security for costs.
Article 19/08/2019
On 7 May 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied to the Legal Services Board for approval to alter its rules, to allow it to decide cases on the civil standard of proof. If it is successful, solicitors facing future misconduct charges will have their cases assessed according to the arguably less stringent balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt (the standard of proof adopted by the criminal courts) which is currently applied.
Case review 12/06/2019
Following on from our August 2018 article 'Phoenix Healthcare – here we go again', judgment was handed down yesterday by the Court of Appeal.
Case review 05/06/2019
Following the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Perry v Raleys [13.02.19], the question of standard of proof in loss of opportunity cases has troubled the court once again. The High Court has recently revisited the principles set down in Allied Maples Group Limited v Simmons and Simmons [1995], and whether causation must be proven by a claimant on the balance of probabilities, or on a loss of a chance evaluation.
Case review 15/05/2019
On 26 March 2019, judgment was handed down in the above case. The outcome, in which Kennedys was instructed on behalf of the successful defendants, provides further clarity on how LPA receivers can fulfil their duties to act in good faith and to avoid conflicts of interest.
