If you require urgent advice on a claim for privacy then please fill in the contact form below giving a description of the claim and a Lawyer will call you back out of office hours.  During Office hours you can call us on 0151 236 3737.

Below we provide a brief outline as to Privacy.

Since the introduction of the Human Rights Act the law of Privacy has developed. Article 8 of the act states: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’

What do i need to show to bring a Privacy claim?

There is a two stage process that the courts will go through.

The court must identify whether there is a reasonable expectation of of privacy such as to engage Article 8. This is considered from the view of the person who is affected by the publicity. This will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including:

• your particular attributes, whether your are a person normally in the public eye, or whether you are a child or an adult,
• the type of activity in which you were engaged in, the place at which it was happening,
• the nature and purpose of the intrusion, the absence of consent and whether it was known or could be inferred,
• the effect on you of the publication,
• the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher.

The court will then look at the public interest, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 may displace the right to privacy or tip the balance in favour of disclosure.

A tension exsists between Article 8 and Article 10. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act deals with this :

• the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent

• or that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.
• the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
• Need to deal with the court’s obligation to have particular regard to the Convention right to freedom of expression; and
• The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—(a)the extent to which—(i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or(ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;(b)any relevant privacy code.
• Public Interest.

What Defences are available

The main defence to such an action , or an application for an injunction , is that there is an overriding public interest in publication i.e. the media can broadcast/ publish confidential material or information providing the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in preserving the confidential infomation.

Each case will need to be carefully examined to see if the interests of freedom of expression outweigh your rights to private life.

What action will I take?

We are able to make an urgent application for an injunction and will claim damages and your legal costs.

Disclaimer

This site is provided by Armstrongs Solicitors limited for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as a source of detailed legal knowledge. Information was correct at time of publication, but be aware that it is possible that legal points may have been superceded since. Users should seek advice from a suitably qualified solicitor before taking any action based on information contained within this site. Armtrongs solicitors Limited disclaims all responsibility for any losses arising from reliance on information contained within this site.

If you require advice as to conveyancing negligence then fill in one of our enquiry forms below.

The importance of proper advice being given by Solicitors and parties taking advice when purchasing a property was illustrated in the recent case of Kernott v Jones.

A couple were purchasing a property.  Jones provided the majority of the purchase price.  The property was to be held in joint names as opposed to tenants in common.  The couple split but failed to deal with the arrangements for the property.

Mr Kernott brought another property with Jones remaining at the property paying the mortgage.

17 years later a dispute arose as to the original property.

The property had been brought as joint tenants and the parties had failed to change the ownership or agree a new financial arrangement.

The parties excepted that at the time of purchase they held the property equally but it was the case that the property despite the uneven financial contributions since the couple had split, was still held on a 50/50 basis.

It is important to consider how you hold a property when purchased but also to reconsider if your financial position or relationship changes and take advice from a Solicitor.

Whilst the case detailed above was not about Solicitors Negligence the principal and the importance of a solicitor advising as to how a property is held and the difference between joint tenancy and tenants in common is an important one.

Disclaimer

This site is provided by Armstrongs Solicitors limited for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as a source of detailed legal knowledge. Information was correct at time of publication, but be aware that it is possible that legal points may have been superceded since. Users should seek advice from a suitably qualified solicitor before taking any action based on information contained within this site. Armtrongs solicitors Limited disclaims all responsibility for any losses arising from reliance on information contained within this site.

Liverpool Solicitors Armstrongs held  a charity day in aid of North West Cancer Research . Over 40 of the staff baked a variety of cakes and made home made Jams and Chutneys for sale. A raffle was held with prizes ranging from an Easter egg hamper to an extra days leave to the lucky winner. In addition a  Jewellery sale was held to great success.

The day raised a further £500 for the charity.

Armstrongs said, “We continue to support  Northwest Cancer Research  and the tremendous work the charity does to provide grants to support fundamental research into the causes of cancer.  Everyone at Armstrongs got involved for the Charity to make it a tremendous day.”

Distraint

Court Proceedings

Forfeiture

Recovery from Sub-tenants

Recovery from the original tenant

Disclaimer

This site is provided by Armstrongs Solicitors limited for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as a source of detailed legal knowledge. Information was correct at time of publication, but be aware that it is possible that legal points may have been superceded since. Users should seek advice from a suitably qualified solicitor before taking any action based on information contained within this site. Armtrongs solicitors Limited disclaims all responsibility for any losses arising from reliance on information contained within this site.

What is Malicious Falsehood?

It is law which exists to protect against statements which aren’t in themselves Defamatory but are still untrue and have caused damage.

How does a malicious falsehood differ from libel and slander, in theory and practice?

If published statements are not defamatory, then a claimant cannot succeed in an action for libel or slander but still could still pursue a claim for malicious falsehood

To prove Malicious falsehood the claimant has to show

• The defendant published words about the claimant which were false;
• They were published maliciously; and
• The publication has caused special damage.

What is an example of Malicious falsehood?

An example of this would be to say that a dentist had retired from the his profession. This is not in itself Defamatory but as it is untrue could lead the Dentist to suffer financial loss.

The comment will not damage the reputation of the Dentist so he cant bring a claim  for  libel or slander. He may be able to bring a claim for Malicious Falsehood if he can show that the statement was made maliciously.

What else must be proven in a malicious falsehood action?

Malice is an important element. It is defined as defined as a statement made by a aparty who knows that the statement is false or is reckless as to its truth. It can be by a person who has made the statement when motivated by an improper motive. Being negligent as to the truth of the statement is not sufficient to prove Malice.

It is no longer necessary for statements in written form to show actual damage. Now it is is sufficient if the words were calculated to cause damage or likely to cause damage to the Claimant in his office,profession,calling,trade or business.

What is the limitation period for malicious falsehoods?

The limitation period for  malicious falsehood actions is one year save if it relates to the Internet.

Could the potential Defendant publish a correction?

If the party making the statement publishes a correction quickly and realises the error then this will go someway to reducing the prospects of success for the Claimant on being able to show  malice.

What constitutes slander of goods and title?

Slander of goods is a false and malicious statement disparaging the claimant’s goods,slander of title is a false and malicious denial of a claimant’s title to property.

Liverpool Defamation Solicitors Armstrongs writes as to Internet Defamation and pressure to reform Libel Laws.

Yahoo Facebook and AOL have combined to  exert influence on the new  Conservative government and its reform of Libel Laws.

The organisations complain that they should not be required to Police on line forums.

This they said should be left to the parties involved.

They argue that the  multiple publication rule  needs to be rewritten for the Internet age as currently it regards each download as a new publication and therefore a potential source of new libel action, the letter noted.

The organisations are calling for a single publication rule with a limitation period of one year from original publication, and that any libel claimants should approach the author in the first instance rather than any ” intermediaries”.

There should also be a public interest defence in cases where “the material is on a matter of public interest and the author has acted in accordance with expectations of the medium or forum”.

The letter reads as follows

“Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

18th November 2010
Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to ask that you introduce urgent reforms in the Government’s proposed draft Defamation Bill to protect open discussion on the internet.

The English law of defamation is having a disproportionate, chilling effect on online writers, e-communities and web hosts:

The libel laws have not been updated to address the rise of online publication. The current multiple publication rule, dating back to 1849, defines every download as a publication and a potential new cause of action.

Internet service providers can be held liable for comments they host and therefore are inclined to take down material or websites even before the writer or publisher has been made aware of a complaint. Such intermediaries usually have no access to the background or relevant facts and should not be expected to play judge and jury in determining whether a writer’s material is defamatory or not. This is a decision that can and should only be made by the direct parties involved.

Online blogs and forums are available around the world and there appear, in practice, to be few restrictions on material published substantially on matters and concerning parties and reputations elsewhere being the subject of legal action in English courts.

The Internet is used for publication by millions of ordinary citizens for whom the current defences to an action for defamation have not been developed.

We ask that the Government’s draft Bill provide the following protection for discussion on the Internet:

1. ISPs and forum hosts – ‘intermediaries’ – should not be forced to take down material without a determination by a court or competent authority that the content is defamatory. The claimant should in the first instance approach the author rather than an uninvolved intermediary.
2. There should be a single publication rule and a limitation period of one year from original publication.
3. Claimants in libel law should demonstrate that there has been a substantial tort in the jurisdiction in which they bring proceedings.
4. There should be a public interest defence in cases where the material is on a matter of public interest and the author has acted in accordance with expectations of the medium or forum.

Signed

Emma Ascroft, Director, Public & Social Policy, Yahoo! UK & Ireland

Lisa Fitzgerald, Senior Counsel, AOL (UK) Limited

Nicholas Lansman, Secretary-General, Internet Service Providers’ Association, which represents providers of Internet services in the UK. It has over 200 members representing 95 per cent of the access market.

Justine Roberts, CEO, Mumsnet

cc Lord McNally, Minister of State for Justice”

Campaigners for greater online freedom argue that it is impossible to police every single comment made on the web, and that the mere spectre of legal action for defamation would be enough to persuade some websites to shut down, thus stifling free speech and innovation.

If you require advice on Internet defamation and Defamation matters call us or fill in one of our online enquiry forms.

Levicom appealed to the Court of Appeal as to the lower courts decision which had been that although Linklaters  negligently advised  Levicom, the claimant had not suffered damage as they would have proceeded in any event in the same way without the advice. The court therefore awarded only nominal damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal overturned the the lower courts decision. The judge felt the lower court was wrong in deciding the negligent advice was not causative of the Claimants loss.

“When a solicitor gives advice that his client has a strong case to start litigation rather than settle and the client then does just that, the normal inference is that the advice is causative. Of course the inference is rebuttable – it may be possible to show that the client would have gone ahead willy-nilly. But that was certainly not shown on the evidence here. The Judge should have approached the case on the basis that the evidential burden had shifted to Linklaters to prove that its advice was not causative.”

Solicitors will face real difficulties in rebutting the presumption that the Solicitors advice had not caused the loss. This is a common sense decision that if you take advice from your solicitor and that advice proves wrong that a client should be entitled to the presumption that they have relied on that advice unless it can be proved otherwise.

If you have a Solicitors Negligence claim then call us or fill in an enquiry form on line.

They said, “Armstrongs has developed a fantastic reputation both in the North West and Nationwide in the field of Professional Negligence.  Being a member of the association means that it will offer us fantastic opportunities for the exchange of ideas, education and lobbying for changes in the law.

We have had over 2000 enquiries in the last year from clients who have felt let down by Solicitors, Doctors, Architects, Surveyors and Accountants.

Over 60% of our enquiries have been about claims against Solicitors with the remaining enquiries being 20% medical and the rest split between Surveyors, Architects and Accountants.”

It you require advice on Professional Negligence matters then call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in one of our enquiry forms on line.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

You will recall that about two years ago there was a flurry of claims against the banks arising out of loan agreements and credit cards. Claims were made that clients could write off their credit card debts and loan agreements if there were technical breaches in the agreements or payment protection policies had been miss old.

Many Solicitors advised clients to stop making payments or failed to advise that if they did stop payments that they were at risk of losing their credit rating.

So what is the claim that you can bring against your solicitor if he advised you to stop paying your credit card or loan agreement and as a consequence your credit rating was spoiled?

Clients will be entitled to claim general damages to reflect all difficulties that they now  have in obtaining credit.

In addition special damages as to any increase in the cost of credit or inability to borrow money.

If you require advice on a claim in negligence against your solicitor arising out of their negligent advice as to a Consumer Credit Act claim regarding an unenforceable credit agreement and subsequent bad credit rating then call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in one of our enquiry forms online.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Liverpool Solicitors Armstrongs  discusses complaints against Solicitors.

Armstrongs has a specialised unit which  deals with professional negligence claims against Solicitors.  But what if you wish to complain about your solicitor?

If you have a complaint it is usually the case that you should:

1.        Complain in writing to your solicitor about any poor service received or their bill.

2.        If you do not obtain a satisfactory resolution to your complaint then a complaint can be made to the Legal Ombudsman.

3.        They will concern themselves with the following instances;

(i)        Not done what you instructed them to do;

(ii)       Involved in unreasonable delay;

(iii)      Given you inaccurate or incomplete information;

(iv)      Failed to reply to your phone calls and letters or keep you informed of what is going on;

(v)       Failed to give you enough information about what they will charge you before they begin your case or give you your final bill.

The Legal Ombudsman cannot deal with a claim in negligence against your solicitor.

It may be the case that you have a complaint as to poor service but also a claim in negligence against your Solicitor.

Please call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in the enquiry form  and we will advise you as to the best way to proceed.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Modis’ team followed the case of Yousef  Jameel and Dow Jones in 2005 which found in that case the libel was so small as to be an abuse of process and  not worth fighting over.

The High Court ruled in this case that the case could proceed to trial.

The High Court judge ruled that the number of people who saw the statement was only one factor. The abuse of process in Jameel did not depend on just numbers. Cairns had resided in the UK and anticipated he would in the future, this was a factor. The tweet could well be repeated and then distributed. Damages were to be assessed on more than the number of people who had read the tweet.

The fact that your tweets have only been read by a small number of people is not the only factor. Your statements may then be followed and distributed and that could lead to a claim.

If you require advice on Defamation Matters call Armstrongs or fill out one of our contact forms on line.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

The new version is available on iPhone, ipad ,itouch, Google Android, Blackberry Storm and Torch, Palm Pre and other touch based Smartphones.

Armstrongs said:

“It is important that our clients are able to read any latest news about Armstrongs or developments in the law or contact us with queries about their claims or new claims whilst on the move.

Hopefully this will be a useful resource for our clients. The site enables clients to contact all departments direct with any new enquiries and we will ensure that they receive a speedy response.”

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Surveyors Negligence

Liverpool Solicitors Armstrongs specialise in professional negligence claims and writes as to a recent case as to Surveyors and Valuers Negligence.

We are able to  advise you on surveyors negligence claims and any complaints you have against surveyors and valuers and complaints against solicitors. If you have purchased an investment property then this recent case may be of interest. The number of claims against surveyors and valuers and claims in negligence against all professionals has increased as the recession bites and with the effect in the drop in the housing market.

The High Court at the beginning of October gave a second Judgment in the case of Scullion v Bank of Scotland Plc (2010). The Claimant bought a residential investment property.

The property was  bought with a mortgage and  was purchased in 2002 for the sum of £299,800.

The Claimant was to let the property out and use the rental to pay the mortgage and outgoings and in due course hopefully make a profit from the investment.

The valuer was instructed to value the property.  He  valued the property  at £352,950 with an estimate by the valuer of rental income from the property of £2,000 per calendar month.

The Claimant made his best efforts to let out the property but was only able to obtain the sum of £1,050 per calendar month.

Unable to sustain the investment the Claimant put the property on the market and it was eventually sold in May 2006 for the sum of £270,000.

The Claimant sought damages from the Defendant for the inaccurate valuation of the property and the inaccurate rental valuation.

The Court found that a duty of care was owed to the Claimant by the valuers in tort.   That the valuers had breached that duty in respect of both the capital valuation and the rental valuation.  That the surveyor knew that the Claimant would rely on those valuations as to whether or not he was to purchase the property.

The Claimant sought damages to reflect the fall in the value of the property between the date of purchase in 2002 and the date of sale in 2006 which was due to the decline in the property market as foreseeable by the Defendant that if he relied on accurate valuation then later if forced to sell he would suffer a loss if the market fell.

The Court rejected that argument.  He could not recover damages caused by the deterioration in the property market.  He couldn’t suffer a loss as a result of the market valuation as the price paid was less than it was worth at the time of purchase.

The Judge did find however that the Defendant would have been aware of the importance of the rental value to the Claimant to ensure that the rental income was sufficient to cover the mortgage payments.   He was therefore able to recover his overheads (which included Mortgage Interest payments and general letting expenses) less the rental income he did receive.

Importantly, in circumstances where the Claimant acknowledges his debt to the bank or building society, there were no grounds to reduce the damages payable to the Claimant on the grounds that no such liability existed and that the Claimant could not be compelled to use his damages in a particular way.

The Defendant has now obtained Leave to Appeal on two issues;

1.         Whether the Defendant owed a Duty of Care in tort to the Claimant in which he was considered to be a commercial buy to let purchaser.

2.         Whether the scope of that duty extended to losses as to the alleged negligent rental valuation.

A Court of Appeal hearing will be of considerable interest to the public and market in general.

If you have a claim against a surveyor or valuer any professional negligence claim aginst a solicitor accountant or architect  contact us at Armstrongs professional negligence division on 0151 236 3737 or fill in an enquiry form online.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Complaints against Solicitors

Armstrongs professional negligence division deals with many hundreds of complaints against Solicitors per  year.

We are specialist professional negligence solicitors who deal with a range of solicitor negligence claims and other claims against professionals whether medical negligence, surveyors negligence or architects, barristers or accountants negligence.

Examples of the types of complaints against solicitors we deal with are as follows:

Examples of Complaints

1.         If your solicitor misses a time limit and you lose your right to claim compensation.

2.         If your solicitor fails to advise you on some aspect of a legal transaction.

3.         If your solicitor fails to recover the right amount of damages on your behalf when bringing an accident claim.

4.         If your solicitor fails to draft a Will adequately for example;

(i)        The Will isn’t signed.

(ii)       The Will wasn’t changed in time before the maker of the Will died.

(iii)      Fails to draft the Will in accordance with the Will maker’s instructions and as a consequence the beneficiary of a Will fails to recover the right amount under the terms of the Will.

5.         If your solicitor failed to follow the correct procedure against an un-insured driver when submitting a claim to the Motor Insurance Bureau and as a consequence you lost your right to claim.

6.         If your solicitor exchanged contracts without your instruction leaving you legally bound to buy a property when the seller served upon you a Notice to Complete causing you loss.

7.         If your solicitor failed to advise you as to the consequences of exchanging of contracts and the fact that you were legally bound to proceed to purchase the property.

8.         If your solicitor failed to follow your instructions and as a consequence you lost your claim or recovered less than you should have done.

9.         If your solicitor gave you incorrect advice on a point where the law is clear then your solicitor will be liable in negligence if you then suffered loss.

10.       If your solicitor pursues a claim on your behalf which is hopeless and bound to fail without advising you that that is the case then your solicitor is in breach of his duty to you.

11.       If your solicitor delays in issuing proceedings on your behalf to such an extent and the time for bringing a claim has expired and you lose your right to claim then there will be a claim in negligence against your solicitor.

12.       If your solicitor fails to pursue your claim and delays after the proceedings have been commenced and the action is struck out for failing to comply with time limits it is unlikely that your solicitor will have any Defence to an action against him.

13.       If your solicitor settles your claim without consultation with you and as a consequence you suffer loss then it is likely that you would have a claim against your solicitor.

14.       If your solicitor fails to make appropriate conveyancing searches when you are purchasing a property such as failing to complete a drainage search, failure to complete an environmental  search or coal mining search or any other standard conveyancing search on the purchase of a property then it is likely that your solicitor will have been negligent.

15.       If your solicitor fails to adequately consider during the purchase of a property any searches or enquiries and ensure that you are adequately advised as to what you are purchasing and as a consequence you suffer loss then you may have a claim in negligence against your solicitor.

16.       If your solicitor fails to advise you as to some aspect when purchasing a property such as a failure to advise you as to an existence of a right of way or defect in the title, or the absence of planning permission, or the nature and effect of a covenant and the risks which are attached to it and you suffer loss then you may well have a claim against your solicitor.

We are able to offer no win no fee agreements.

It may be the case that you have a complaint as to poor service but also a claim in negligence against your Solicitor.

Please call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in the enquiry form  and we will advise you as to the best way to proceed.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Solicitors Negligence Claims.

Armstrongs, professional negligence solicitors writes as to what you need to prove to bring a professional negligence claim and win claims for compensation.

1.      That your solicitor owed you a duty of care.

This is easy for us to prove.

2.      That there had been a breach of that duty of care.  Your solicitor  must carry out the work with reasonable care and skill.  If not, he may be judged to be negligent and responsible for your loss.  Your solicitor is not expected to be the best in his or her field but simply act on your behalf or conduct your claim to the standard of a reasonably competent solicitor.  The duty of care owed by a solicitor to you will be summarised as follows:-

(i)      To exercise reasonable care and skill.

(ii)     To advise on all matters which are relevant to your solicitor’s instruction by you.

(ii)     To always protect your interest.

(iv)    To carry out your instructions.

(v)     To keep you informed on a regular basis.

It will be necessary for us to look at your individual circumstances of your case and examine any mistakes that have been made.

The Breach of Duty of care has caused you loss

Once we have been able to show that the standard of care is inadequate your professional negligence solicitor will need to show that the lack of skill or care has caused you a loss in monetary terms.

We will examine in particular circumstances and advise as to whether you have suffered a loss or the extent of the loss suffered.

If you have a solicitors negligence claim then Armstrongs have over 20 years of experience of solicitors negligence. Why not  call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill out one of our enquiry forms on line.

We are able to offer no win no fee agreements and all types of funding.

We look at  surveyor negligence and valuer negligence claims.  Liverpool Solicitors Armstrongs writes.

The most recent decision is that of K/S Lincoln  v CB Richard Ellis Hotels Limited (2010).

The claimant were investors with four hotels.  The Defendant were instructed to value the hotels.  Proceedings were issued against the Valuers.  Part of the claim was that of negligent valuation by the Defendant.  The Judge decided, following Case Law that provided the valuation was within the margin of error then it didn’t matter if there had been a mistake in arriving at that figure.

Judge Corson  reviewed the case law on what was an appropriate margin of error and found:

1.         For a standard residential property, the margin of error may be as low as plus or minus 5%.

2.         For a valuation of a one off property, the margin of error will usually be plus or minus 10%.

3.         If there are exceptional features to  the property  then the  margin of error could be plus or minus 15%, or even higher in an appropriate case.

In this case  Judge Corson found that the error should be at least 10% either side of the correct valuation figure and as such the valuation was within that range.

The case provides for clarification of the margin of error allowed on the valuation of a property.

Armstrongs are professional negligence solicitors. We have a specialist unit which deals with  professional negligence claims. If you require advice as to a surveyors negligence claim or a claim against a valuer call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in an enquiry form online.

Armstrongs have a dedicated unit which deals with solicitors negligence claims.

What is the procedure if you instruct Armstrong’s to deal with your negligence claim?

The  Pre-Action Protocol for claims against professionals is designed to enable Claimants to settle a claim without having to issue a claim .  If you have a claim against a solicitor then the protocol lays down certain steps which we would follow to enable your claim to be brought.

Preliminary Notice

We will write  a short letter if necessary outlining details of the claim and advising your former solicitor  to notify their insurers.

Letter of Acknowledgement

They  should then acknowledge that letter within 21 days.

Letter of claim

We will then  complete our investigations. This is likely to involve us obtaining the solicitors complete file of papers.It is important that you also send us all papers that you have been sent by your former solicitor whilst you instructed them A detailed letter of claim will be drafted which will set out the chronology of events and the legal argument that will be relied on in support of the claim.  Any documents which are relevant will be referred to and any  expert report provided.  We will set out in that letter  the amount that you are seeking to recover from the solicitor and how it’s calculated.

Letter of Acknowledgement

The Defendant’s solicitor should then acknowledge that letter within 21 days.

Letter of response

The Defendant will then have  3 months from the date of the letter of acknowledgement to investigate the negligence claim against the solicitor.  When the response is received the Defendant should set out what parts of the claim are admitted or denied and why that is the case.  If your opponent disputes your version of events they should set out why that is the case and provide any documentation in support.

Letter of Settlement

It is at this point that if a settlement is to be achieved then a letter will be written setting out the proposals to compensate you for the negligence.

Further correspondence

If it looks as though the issues have narrowed  and there is a prospect of settlement then your solicitor may well seek to correspond and attempt to the settle the claim.  If not, and there is no prospect of securing a settlement then we are able to issue proceedings on your behalf.

If you have a negligence claim against a Solicitor or any type of professional negligence claim call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in one of our enquiry forms on line.

Armstrongs commented, “This is another high profile win for the Defamation team and establishes Armstrongs as a leading advisor on Defamation proceedings after a number of recent successful libel cases. The claim arose out of an email of the 7th January 2009 sent by the Crown Prosecution Service to Mr Bridger’s employer, Bexhill College.

Mr Bridger had been acquitted in December 2008 at the Hove Crown Court of two charges of rape and one charge of sexual assault. The email sent to Mr Bridger’s employer failed to advise his employer of this.

Proceedings were issued by Mr Bridger for  defamation of character  and an injunction.

The claim was settled shortly after the issue of proceedings.

The Defendants represented by The Treasury Solicitor agreed to pay compensation to Mr Bridger along with his legal costs and an agreed apology in the following terms:

In December 2008, you were acquitted at Hove Crown Court of sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl after the Trial Judge ruled that you had no case to answer on the issue of consent. On 6th January 2009 your former employers, Bexhill College, made a request to the CPS to be provided with information about the case, including how you had behaved towards the complainant. On 7th January 2009, an email was sent to Sue Adams of Bexhill College in which we provided her with the information that she had requested by reproducing the outline of the case prepared by the Crown. Regrettably it was not made clear in the email, as it had been in the telephone conversation, that you had been acquitted and the summary prepared before the trial should be read in that context. The email was not intended to convey the impression that it was the continuing belief of the CPS that you were guilty of the charges which you faced in the criminal prosecution or that the “not guilty” verdict entered in your favour was an aberration. We accept that you were not guilty of any such charges. I apologise for the distress and upset that the email has caused you.

Mr Bridger commented that he was happy that finally the stress and strain of the ordeal was over and that the CPS had accepted the position and agreed to pay him damages. He was delighted with the outcome and felt that he could now move on with his life.

If you wish to seek advice on Defamation proceedings then call us on 0151 236 3737 or complete an enquiry form online.

For many of those who were in the Chandler’s Wharf development when the incident happened last July, they continue to suffer from stress and mental trauma.

Meanwhile, some young investors, who had bought flats as an investment, have found themselves having to sleep on friends’ floors or facing eviction because they cannot meet the ongoing mortgage payments.

Almost a year on, the Health and Safety Executive has still not reported on liability which means that solicitors’ actions on behalf of tenants and owners have effectively stalled.

Armstrongs Solicitors and Beenletdown.com, who are acting for a number of people affected by the incident, said: “Oue clients have been through a year of hell and there is no end in sight.

“Some of them continue to suffer from serious health conditions, while others have found themselves facing eviction or having to resort to sleeping on friends’ floors.

“It is simply not good enough that the Health and Safety Executive should take this long to produce a report attributing liability. The lives of my clients and those of dozens of other residents caught up in this dreadful incident have been turned upside down and until there is a resolution, they are unable to move forward.”

Residents could receive sizeable compensation claims. The total compensation bill for all those affected could run into millions of pounds, according to Armstrongs.

Any compensation would have to cover potential financial loss for possessions, increased rent, expenses from loss of home and any physical or psychiatric injury.

Katherine and Marcella O’Hare were sleeping in their beds when the crane and 55 tonnes of concrete blocks smashed into their building at midday on July 6 last year.

Katherine said: “We have been through hell during the past year and we cannot believe how slow the authorities have been to help us start rebuilding our lives.

“Almost 12 months on, both of us continue to suffer from stress and other serious health issues.”

Other victims to continue to suffer from the fallout of the incident include Colin Rogers, who faces being evicted from his new accommodation because he cannot afford to meet the rent payments.

Meanwhile, recruitment consultant Leon Davies, who owns a flat in Chandler’s Wharf, has had to resort to sleeping on a friend’s floor and now renting a bedsit because the continuing mortgage payments on his empty apartment are crippling him financially.

Armstrongs added: “Perhaps if the HSE and the various insurance companies involved came to see first hand what my clients and others are going through, they might not have been so willing to let this terrible ordeal drag on for such a long time.”

A cancer stricken father-of-three has been awarded £8,000 compensation after being falsely accused of being a criminal by a TV psychic.

Housebound Brennan Clemance was horrified when he watched the programme, broadcast as part of the Psychic Academy on the Bio channel in July last year. The programme was subsequently made available on You Tube where it has been viewed almost 2,000 times.

During the programme, TV psychic Tony Stockwell, who appears all over the world, said to Mr Clemance’s daughter Jenna: Do you see there? How your father had ever been to prison or has links with crime? Do you know that?

Jenna replied: Yes he does, yes, yes.

Stockwell went on: Is that OK for you?

Jenna: Yes that’s true, yes.

Jenna went on: He mentioned about my father being in prison…I actually only found this out a few weeks back. With Tony mentioning it, it’s got me; I’ve got questions that I want to ask my father now.

Shortly before that part of the programme, Stockwell had said: “Psychics have to tune in their minds. It’s not a guessing game.”

The reality is that 59-year-old Mr Clemance was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus at the age of 37 and since then has had numerous operations. The former production worker, who has been partially sighted since birth, has rarely left his home in Darwen, Lancashire, in the last 22 years.

Mr Clemance has now won an apology and damages from A&E Television Network, which is responsible for the Bio channel, which is available to millions of viewers of Sky and Virgin Media services. The programme is also broadcasting an apology on Thursday night.

Mr Clemance’s other daughter, Kim, 25, who acts as his full-time carer, said: “We have been to hell and back in the last year.

“My sister became obsessed by psychics and by what they were telling her. Her appearance on the Psychic Academy and the false accusations were the culmination of this.

“My father and I were asked if we also wanted to take part in the programme but we told them we didn’t because we don’t believe in this kind of thing.

“We were therefore appalled when the programme made its completely unfounded allegations without making any attempt to verify if they were true or not.

“Tony Stockwell is supposed to be a professional psychic but this programme proves that they don’t always get it right. It was a sensational allegation in the middle of a boring programme.”

Mr Clemance’s solicitors, Armstrongs and Beenletdown.com, said: “It is totally unacceptable that a supposedly responsible television company with access to millions of viewers can air completely false allegations.

“To watch the programme on the Bio channel was bad enough, but then to discover it was also on You Tube made things even worse.

“Mr Clemance has suffered substantial damage to his reputation, as well as enormous distress, anxiety and embarrassment.

“This is a seriously ill man who has required 24-hour care for almost 20 years – not a criminal with a prison record, as the programme made out.”

Mr Clemance’s daughter Jenna, who appeared with Stockwell, has since apologised to her father for the hurt she caused by taking part in the programme.

We are Liverpool Libel Solicitors but with clients nationwide. If you require advice on a Libel  Claim or any aspect of Defamation  then call Armstrongs on 0151 236 3737 or complete  an enquiry form on line.

The Old Hall Street-based firm, which specialises in professional negligence and personal injury, has just secured promotion to Division 1 of the Merseyside Solicitors League.

The team scored a number of notable victories during the season with perhaps the most satisfying an 18-5 trouncing of local rivals Makin & Co.

Armstrongs directors said: “Not only are we one of the fastest growing law firms, we would also appear to have a pretty useful football team.

“We’re looking forward to playing in our own Premiership next season.”

Payroll administrator Christine Bigley, 23, brought the action against Merseyside Employment Law after discovering her award for unfair dismissal against a previous employer was unenforceable because of their glaring mistake.

The mix-up was only detected after Miss Bigley sought help from solicitors following several failed attempts to get the money she won at an earlier industrial tribunal.

Christine was horrified to discover Merseyside Employment Law had brought the action against a bogus company with a similar sounding name to the one she used to work for.

Ms Bigley said: “I won what I thought was a claim for unfair dismissal against my former employers but the money never materialised. I was making no progress so I went to Armstrongs Solicitors for help.

“It soon became clear what the problem was, I was outraged to be told that the whole episode was nothing short of a charade. I had agonised over whether to pursue the claim in the first place and when I decided to go for it I then had to wait another six months for the hearing to commence.

“My life was effectively put on hold, and all for nothing. Merseyside Employment Law let me down, I still cannot quite believe they have been so careless. Suing the wrong company is little short of a joke.”

The error was discovered by Armstrongs Solicitors and a professional negligence expert.

He said: “Unfortunately this is not a unique case, the level of professional incompetence from people like solicitors to accountants and beyond never ceases to amaze me.

“Once Armstrongs Solicitors identified what the problem was we were then able to advice Ms Bigley accordingly and we are delighted she has won an award for what she has been put through.”

Armstrongs Solicitors launched a dedicated professional negligence unit last November which was supported by a website, beenletdown.com and an extensive local media campaign urging people to get in touch.

The expansion has been a great success, with the law firm recently announcing it is set to earn around ₤1m in fees in just six months.

The Old Hall Street-based firm is acting for 150 clients, who are taking on their accountants, doctors, solicitors and even a psychic.

Meanwhile Merseyside Employment Law claims to be the largest not-for-profit agency in Merseyside providing specialist employment law advice and representation.

It is funded mainly by the Legal Service Commission, the Big Lottery Fund and Liverpool City Council.

Ms Bigley added: “I am so grateful to Armstrongs Solicitors, without them I would have nothing to show for all the stress and strain of going to an industrial tribunal. Now at last I can put closure on this chapter in my life and finally move on.”

Read the article in the Liverpool Daily Post – May 27th 2010

Kelly Woodman and Laurinda Holden raised £430 between them and finished the race together in a respectable one hour five minutes.

And last Saturday’s tombola extravaganza, organised by Hannah Worswick,  raised £300 thanks to the generous support of local businesses who provided the majority of the 70 prizes, ranging from bottles of brandy to boxes of chocolates and flowers.

Speaking about the fundraising efforts Armstrongs said: “We are delighted with everybody’s efforts over the weekend. An extra big thanks goes out to Kelly and Laurinda who had a few aches and pains on Monday but it’s all in aid of a great cause.

“And we would also like to thank all the kind local businesses who donated so generously to our tombola giveaway in Bootle.

“Without their support it would never have been such a success. We are now well on track to raise £10,000 for North West Cancer Research Fund by the end of the year.”

This case concerns the expert witness immunity rule which provides protection from a civil action to experts who give evidence and prepare reports for court purposes on the basis of public policy.

Facts:

The Claimant had previously pursued a claim for personal injuries following a road traffic accident. The Claimant had appointed the Defendant to prepare an expert report. In her initial report, the Defendant suggested that the Claimant was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

At a later stage in the claim for personal injury, the Defendant and another expert had a meeting and prepared a joint statement. The statement was signed by the Defendant and the other expert which subsequently prejudiced the Claimant’s claim considerably. It later became apparent that the Defendant had signed the joint statement prepared by the other side’s expert, without making any comments and/or amendments. As a result, the Claimant’s claim settled for a smaller sum than was originally claimed.

The Claimant issued proceedings for professional negligence against the Defendant.

The Defendant made an application for summary judgment to strike out the Claimant’s claim and sought to rely upon the Court of Appeal decision in Stanton v Callaghan [2000] EWHC 61 (QB) pleading the expert witness immunity rule. The Defendant also submitted that there was no defence to an application to strike out.

The Claimant argued that Stanton v Callaghan was inconsistent with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, since the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into effect, Stanton v Callaghan was no longer binding. The Claimant also relied upon the House of Lords decision in Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 which provided that the expert witness rule could no longer survive. In Hall v Simons, a barrister was not found to have immunity.

Held:

The Defendant’s application to strike out was granted. The Judge considered himself bound by the decision of Stanton v Callaghan which remained good law.  The Judge made further comments stating ‘although I conclude that Stanton v Callaghan remains good law, I have doubts as to whether it will continue to remain so for the reasons canvassed by the Claimant and the discussion summarized above. I conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that on re-examination by a superior court, with power to do so; it will emerge that the public policy justification rule cannot support it’.

Comment:

Here, the court has sent a clear message that the expert witness immunity rule days may be numbered.

A bill making it easier to claim compensation from Insolvent Defendants, became an Act of Parliament on the 25^th March 2010.

The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill has completed its progress through parliament in only 4 months.

Prior to the implementation of this new bill it was necessary to restore an Insolvent Company to the Companies Register.  This was an expensive procedure necessary in order to bring proceedings and necessary to claim against an Insolvent Defendant’s Insurance Policy.

It is now the case that a Claimant can bring a claim directly against the insurer without first commencing proceedings against the Insolvent Insured.  All issues including the liability of the insured and the amount of compensation can be dealt with in the same proceedings.  It is still open for a Claimant to bring a claim against the Insolvent Defendant and then seek to enforce against the Insurer.

The new legislation doesn’t substantially change the law but will provide significant time and cost advantages for all parties.

Money Laundering Litigation

The Law Society has issued new advice for Practitioners involved in litigation.  The provision of legal advice and the conduct of litigation are not covered by the Money Laundering Regulation 2007.  The Law Society has identified an increase in the risk of running fraud in litigation.   The perception that many law firms involved in litigation are more relaxed as to money laundering, they suspect has led to a shift in criminal activity.

An area of concern is debt recovery.

The criminal sets up cash intensive business.  Those criminal monies are mingled with legitimate monies and then make their way into a business bank account without raising suspicion.

To transfer the funds from a current business back to other parts a document is created to suggest a debt is owing.  The business then instructs a solicitor who is instructed to recover the debt by way of proceedings.   The funds then pass through the solicitors account and then back to the client.

The Law Society has identified warning signs.

*          Not meeting the client and the client living some distance from the firm

*          Scant paperwork for the debt

*          The debt settled very quickly after the issue of proceedings

*          The client being very willing to pay fees even though you have done very little work

*          The fees are overpaid and paid in advance

*          The client requesting that funds be paid to a third party

*          The Law Society advises that litigators should consider:-

(1)  Asking the client why they instructed the firm and why those funds are to be paid to a third party

(2)  Protecting client account by limiting provision to clients

*          Undertaking due diligence on litigation clients on a risk assessment basis making searches for ownership or other connection between a debtor and the client.

*          Only making payments against cleared funds.

Success Fees and Defamation cases

The government is to reduce the maximum for success fee in defamation cases to 10%.  This is an interim measure prior to consideration of Jackson LJ’s recommendation that success fees and ATE premiums will no longer be recoverable from successful parties.

Court of Appeal decision on limitation

The Court of Appeal has held that a £50 million pound claim against Accountants Ernest & Young is out of time.  The reason being that the claim was brought more than 6 years after the Claimant first suffered damage.

The question faced by the Court of Appeal was when did the Claimant first suffer damage.

The Court of Appeal held that the moment the Claimant entered into the first transaction was when the 6 year time limit would have run.   That decision follows a recent trend in finding that the limitation period will start to run when the advice is acted upon rather than at any later point when financial loss is suffered.

Budget announcements

*          Stamp Duty has been suspended on homes worth up to £250k for first time buyers for a further two tax years.

*          If you have lost your job and struggling to pay your mortgage then the support for mortgage interest scheme will continue at its higher rate for another 6 months.

If you have an ISA the new annual limit will now increase annually in line with inflation.

Winter fuel payments to pensioners continue at £250 and for those over 80, £400.

Income Personal Tax Allowances are static at £6,475.  Personal Allowances for those aged between 65 and 74 remain at £9,490, for those 75 and over £9,640.

There is a new 50% tax rate for those with taxable incomes over £150K and the 40% tax threshold has been frozen at £43,875.

The Inheritance Tax threshold is frozen at £325k.