David Chalmers

Thinking about challenging a Will? At Morecrofts, we act on both sides of these cases - on behalf of prospective claimants and for executors and beneficiaries. These cases can be tough to litigate so claimants should always seek legal advice and consider the strength of their evidence carefully before litigating. If you need our support, call us on 0151 236 8871 or visit ⬇️ https://lnkd.in/eivzkpwG #Solicitors #ContestingaWill #WillsandProbate

4

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝙈𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙞𝙩𝙩 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 The Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 467) has upheld the decision of Lieven J in 𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙙𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙫 𝙎𝙎𝙇𝙐𝙃𝘾 [2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin) that an Enforcement Notice enforcing against a material change of use cannot require the removal of operational development which is the “source of or fundamental to the material change of use”. So, for operational development to be within the scope of an Enforcement Notice enforcing against a material change of use, it must be subordinate or secondary to, the change of use. The 𝙈𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙞𝙩𝙩 principle cannot be used to justify the removal of a building or other operational development which is a “separate development in its own right”. Zack Simons and Nick Grant appeared for the Secretary of State. For more information, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/4a5EhO2 #PlanningLaw #GreenBelt

46

4 Comments

In the latest development in long-running fraud proceedings brought by our client against various defendants, yesterday, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in an expedited appeal in complex committal proceedings. Our client was respondent to the appeal brought by her one-time personal financier and trusted adviser, who had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in March 2024 after being found to be in serious and deliberate contempt of court. The judgment shows that appellate courts will be slow to overturn findings of fact or decisions properly made by committal or trial judges, who are best placed to assess the evidence available to them. It will be of interest to fraud practitioners and to those bringing, defending or seeking to appeal committal proceedings. Our team was led by Jonathan Tickner, with Alice McDonald and George Pizzey also acting. Dan McCourt Fritz KC and Andrew G. of Serle Court Court were instructed as counsel. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eyzwctjA #legal #legalinsights #fraud #courts #fraudprevention #justice #lawyers #law #legal #justicesystem

33

#LawyersofLinkedIn, we know the year-end CPD deadline is looming. But instead of stressing, why not win your way to compliance—and more? Closer Conveyancing is partnering with CPDOnline to give away: - 5 free Closer files for bonus year-end savings - A $250 CPDOnline subscription credit (applicable for a 1 year subscription) to help you meet your annual requirement—right in time! A prize bundle worth over $500 in value! 🤩 Join the giveaway contest by signing up for the CPDOnline & Closer mailing lists via the link below. You’ll be automatically entered into the draw to win. Click here to enter - https://lnkd.in/eZGAiEtH #Law #lawstudents #lawyers #lawfirmmarketing #lawyerlife #lawyering #lawsuits #lawandlegislation #legalissues #legalprofession #paralegals

12

1 Comment

Did you know that final parenting orders can now be reconsidered under new provisions in the Family Law Act 1975? Recent changes have codified the principles from the landmark case Rice v Asplund (1979), specifically under section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975. In her latest blog post, Medson Legal Solicitor Nadine Khalil breaks down what this means for families and legal professionals alike, exploring when and how courts can revisit these orders. The key question: has there been a significant change in circumstances, and is it in the child's best interests? Stay informed and learn more by reading the full article!

6

Family court analysis lifts lid on life for litigants in person https://lnkd.in/dXYE7pMU

1

COMPETITION TIME 🎁🎉 Lawyers don't just win cases - sometimes they win a t-shirt too 😉⚖️ Enter here: https://lnkd.in/eQekpTk8 We will deliver the “verdict” to the successful “applicant” on the 30th of August 2024. The Law of Laughing Team #lawyer #legal #law #legalteam #attorney #lawfirm #win #inhousecounsel #giveawayalert #lawstudents

2

Conveyancing is the legal process of transferring property ownership from one party to another and is governed by a set of rules and regulations that vary by jurisdiction. In Scotland, the conveyancing process is distinct from that in other parts of the United Kingdom, with its own unique legal framework. Central to this framework are title deeds, which provide a detailed record of a property's ownership history, legal boundaries, and any encumbrances or restrictions that may affect its use. One of the primary reasons why reviewing title deeds is essential in Scottish conveyancing is to confirm the seller's right to transfer ownership of the property. Title deeds serve as evidence of ownership, tracing the property's history back to its original acquisition. By examining these documents, buyers can verify that the seller has the legal authority to sell the property and that there are no outstanding claims or disputes regarding ownership. Moreover, title deeds contain crucial information about the property's boundaries and any rights of way or easements that may exist. These details are vital for ensuring that buyers have a clear understanding of what they are purchasing and any limitations that may apply to the use of the property. Failure to review title deeds thoroughly could result in unexpected boundary disputes or legal issues down the line. Whether you wish to buy, sell, rent, or let, our Property Team will be with you every step of the way. Paris Steele are here to help when it matters most. Our next Ask the Expert session will discuss the process of examining title deeds in Scotland and will be held on 14 May 2024 by our local expert Tracy Andrew. To book a time with Tracy to ask a question contact us on: 📩 [email protected]. Our dedicated expert will be happy to provide initial advice, signpost you to additional sources of support or provide a fee quote for more in-depth assistance.

1

Feeling overwhelmed by the fine print in contracts? You're not alone. The legal jargon can leave even the savviest consumer scratching their head. Thankfully, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, has been updated to introduce the new unfair contract term regime. In this article, our commercial law team discusses the unfair contract term regime and its impact on consumers and small businesses. Click the link to find out more! https://lnkd.in/gZw7-fKa #RamsdenLaw #RamsdenLawyers #CommercialLaw #CommercialAgreement #CommercialContract #SmallBusinesses #SmallBusiness #UnfairContractTerms

4

Don’t miss the chance to gain recognition for the outstanding contribution you or your firm make to the legal landscape.  You have until midnight on 17 June to register your interest and submit your entries.  👉 https://lnkd.in/eiFeksHb Have you entered yet?  #ParalegalAwards #LegalProfession #CILEX #RegisterNow #CelebrateExcellence

2

Did You Know? Residential conveyancing is a complex process involving over 30 different stages, from drafting contracts to finalising the transfer of ownership. Each step requires careful attention to detail to ensure a smooth and legally sound transaction. Why Use a Solicitor? Expert Guidance: A solicitor can navigate the legal intricacies, ensuring that all documentation is correct and all legal obligations are met. Risk Management: Solicitors can identify potential issues such as title disputes, planning restrictions, or problematic clauses, protecting you from costly mistakes. Peace of Mind: With solicitors like Matt Digling and Jayne Gill handling the process, you can focus on what really matters - moving into your new home! At TP Legals, our experienced solicitors specialise in making the conveyancing process efficient and stress-free. With our expert team by your side, you can be confident that your property transaction is in safe hands.

5

Thinking of moving from #Paralegal to #Solicitor? In the current UK legal landscape, career progression is no longer a straight line—and for those looking to break into practising law, a tactical approach is essential. Robert Dudley’s latest guide on WardblawG - Legal Tech, Digital & AI For Law Firms Blogs breaks down the essential steps, skills, and insights needed to make that transition. Read more 👇

12

Annual statistics for 2023 insolvencies were published by The Insolvency Service in early May, in their Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation. The attached report illustrates the numbers of "connected person" sales and the experience of The Pre Pack Pool in the year.

1

Have you heard about our online 'Office Hours' for legal directories? Join Director Daniel Kidd for a 30min brainstorm every Wednesday at 11.30am EDT / 10.30am CDT / 8.30am PDT / 4.30pm BST until 10th July. Register below 👇 Ask all your legal directories questions from choosing work highlights, improving rankings and winning legal awards on Wednesdays. Register for your free place here: https://lnkd.in/eXA6sqW8 #chambersandpartners #legaldirectories #uslawfirms #legalrankings #legal500 #rankings #legalsubmissions #legalmarketing #lma24 #ama #legalama #gcc #legalawards

12

2 Comments

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has recently given a judgment which will be of great significance to property lawyers - Bradley and Others v Abacus Land 4 Limited [2024] UKUT 120 (LC). The decision gives guidance to the tribunal as to the correct approached to apportionment challenges in service charge disputes, and has reconciled the decisions in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 17, Williams and others v Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd [2023] UKSC 6 and Hawk Investment Properties Ltd v Eames and others [2023] UKUT 168 (LC) James Sandham of Selborne Chambers appeared for the successful appellants. Facts: The appellants were leaseholders of a mixed-use block and were required to pay a service charge in the manner designated and apportioned by the respondent landlord. In 2013, the landlord’s predecessor in title had granted a lease of the communal gym to a third party (‘the gym tenant’) for a term of 999 years without a repairing covenant. Significantly, unlike the residential leases, the gym lease did not require the gym tenant to contribute to the maintenance costs. The respondent landlord’s predecessor and, later, the respondent therefore apportioned all of gym costs, including the costs of major works carried out at the behest of the gym tenant, solely to the residential leaseholders. From 2013 to 2020, the service charges included the entirety of the gym costs. However, that was not without demure from the residential leaseholders, as those charges were partially offset by a contribution from the landlord reflecting rent received from the gym tenant. The situation escalated after 2020 when the landlord, due to a dispute with the gym tenant that involved refurbishment of the gym and a rent holiday for the gym tenant, indicated its intention to charge to the residential leaseholders the costs occasioned by that dispute together with the costs of the refurbishment works agreed in settlement of it. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision The leaseholders applied to the FTT for a determination under s.27A of the 1985 Act. The FTT held that the respondent had followed a rational process. As a result of the terms of the gym lease, there was no way of the respondent landlord could recover the costs that might otherwise have been paid by the gym tenant. Accordingly, the decision to allocate 100% of the gym maintenance and refurbishment costs to the residential leaseholders was rational and therefore reasonable as it was not one that no reasonable landlord properly directing itself could have reached: Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 17 and Williams and others v Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd [2023] UKSC 6 applied. The Upper Tribunal has overturned that decision. To read why, and to learn what this means for the future, please visit our website: https://lnkd.in/ezzakzgq

15

#DyingMattersWeek – Let’s talk about how having a day in court is not always the best option   In Anna Metadjer’s recent blog, she considers mediation as an alternative to resolve estate disagreements & potentially heal family rifts.   Read more here: https://lnkd.in/epHhEAD5   #KingsleyNapley #DyingMattersWeek #DyingMattersWeek2024 #TalkAboutIt #EstatePlanning #DisputeResolution #ConflictResolution

14

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal has just provided some guidance concerning the provision of security for litigation costs. In particular, a party isn't automatically considered capable of meeting its potential obligations only because it is a subsidiary of a large corporation. But the other side must then argue that this particular subsidiary lacks the resources for a hypothetical reimbursement. In the security context, the likelihood of one outcome or the other will not be considered. The standard for the enforceability of a cost award in a foreign country is not that it is impossible, but security is warranted if enforcement would be unduly burdensome. If a party so argues, the court wants to know not only about the legal framework in a given country, but also the practical implications. In SodaStream International, Ltd. (a PepsiCo subsidiary) v. Aarke, those principles do not lead to a different outcome: no security is ordered. (And in the meantime SodaStream has won the case in the first instance. That was one of the Dusseldorf LD's three "Halloween injunctions".) Panel: Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judge Ingeborg Simonsson, Judge Patricia Rombach. Counsel for defendant-appellant Aarke: Advokatbyrån Gulliksson AB's Jens Olsson, Magnus Dahlman and Emelie Rexelius. Counsel for plaintiff-appellee SodaStream: Hogan Lovells's Dr. Andreas von Falck, Dr. Alexander Klicznik, Diana Rodriguez and Lea Gröblinghoff. https://lnkd.in/dKrQXvGb

16