The Court of Appeal in a recent case considered whether “formal written contract will then follow in due course” was sufficient to prevent a contract being formed as would the phrase “subject to contract”.

Immingham Storage Company Limited v Clear Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89

The Claimant sent a quotation to the Defendant and marked it “subject to board approval and tankage availability”. The quotation also stated “all other terms will be as our General Storage Conditions, Version 2008″ and ended with “a formal written contract will then follow in due course”.

Both Parties signed the quotation and then the Claimant confirmed board approval.

The Claimant then sent a contract which was never returned, signed by the Defendant but still proceeded with the storage.

The Claimant invoiced the Defendant for storage .

The Defendant argued that there was no binding contract as he had never signed the agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that three factors pointed overwhelmingly to an intention to create contractual relations:

• The quotation (and other negotiations) were not expressly made subject to contract.

• The quotation was expressly made subject to two other conditions (board approval and confirmation of tank availability), which had been fulfilled.

• All substantial terms were agreed; there was no substantial difference between the quotation and the formal contract.

This case demonstrates the Court’s willingness to enforce an agreement made informally. You need to ensure that you word your document strongly if you don’t wish to create legal relations, heading the document  “subject to contract” will show a presumption that parties do not intend to be bound by the exchange in most cases.

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 Information was correct at time of publication, but be aware that it is possible that legal points may have been superceded since.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 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.

In this case the owner of land, Baxter,  failed to object in time to Mr Mannions application for adverse possession of land to the land Registry.

Mannion objected after the time limit for an objection or counter-notice had expired.

Baxter had in fact only been in occupation for 10 years.

Mannion applied to the Land Registry and the adjudicator ruled he had been in adverse possession of the land for only 10 years and rectified the register as a mistake had been made.
Baxter appealed stating it had not been a mistake as there had been no error or mistake in the procedural registration procedure.

The Appeal court held the Registrar does have the power to correct mistakes even if they were not of a procedural nature.

This provides welcome clarification of the law as to adverse possession that an owner can still apply for rectification of the register to the Land Registry even if procedural rules have not been followed.

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.

The Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said:

‘The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society. In recent years though, the increased threat of costly libel actions has begun to have a chilling effect on scientific and academic debate, and investigative journalism.

‘The Government’s draft defamation bill will ensure that anyone who makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion can do so with confidence.

“However it is never acceptable to harm someone’s reputation without just cause, so the Bill will ensure defamation law continues to balance the needs of both sides and encourage a just outcome in libel cases.”

The Draft Bills measures are as follows:

• A new requirement that a statement must have caused, or is likely to cause, substantial harm in order for it to be defamatory.
• A new statutory defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest.
• A statutory defence of truth (replacing the current common law defence of justification).
• A statutory defence of honest opinion (replacing the current common law defence of fair/honest comment).
• Provisions updating and extending the circumstances in which the defences of absolute and qualified privilege are available.
• Introduction of a single publication rule to prevent an action being brought in relation to publication of the same material by the same publisher after a one year limitation period has passed.
• Action to address libel tourism by ensuring a court will not accept jurisdiction unless satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring and action against someone who is not domiciled in the UK or an EU Member State.
• Removal of the presumption in favour of jury trial, so that the judge would have a discretion to order jury trial where it is in the interests of justice.

A consultation period is now open until the 10th June 2010.

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.

New Rules as to Cookies will come into force on the 25 May 2011. Cookies are tiny bits of software that are installed on a computer when an individual visits a website. They enable a website owner to remember log in details and other preferences but can be used to target advertising based on a browser history as to the Internet surfers use of a particular site.

The Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive introduced will mean that UK businesses will have to get the consent of users to store or access information on users computers.

Businesses will have to address this issue with their websites.

The Information Commissioners Bureau will not pursue businesses to prosecution for the moment providing they are making efforts to deal with the problem.

Long term it may be a matter of changing browser settings on computers via manufactures so that users opt into the consent to Cookies.

Businesses must consider how they are to address this compliance as we head towards the May 25 2011 deadline otherwise they risk prosecution.

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.

In the case of Morgan v Mace and Jones where a Solicitor sought advice from Counsel and that advice was confusing and the Solicitor failed to seek clarification of the advice the solicitor was negligent in failing to do so.

The claim failed however as the Claimant couldn’t show that if clarification had been sought Counsels advice would have been different and loss caused.

The case shows the difficulty in Lawyers Negligence claims that even when negligence has been established the party still has to show that the negligence would have caused the loss.

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 a solicitor professional negligence claim then call us or fill in the enquiry form below. In the case of Haugesund Kommune and another v Depfa ACS Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 33 a firm of Solicitors advised a bank as to whether  two counter-parties had the legal capacity to enter into a arrangement with the bank.  The Solicitor advised they did have capacity, but that the bank would not be able to enforce the agreement. The arrangement was void and the bank sued the solicitor.

The court of appeal held that the Solicitors were not liable to the bank because the loss was as a result of the Defendants impecuniosity and not the advice given.

Even though the bank would not have entered into the transaction had it recieved the correct advice, the advice was not the cause of the loss but was the defendants financial circumstance. A solicitor will only be liable insofar as the scope of his duty extends to advising on the direct cause of the loss. The adviser will not necessarily be responsible for a losses that the client suffers as a consequence of entering into the transaction.

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.”

The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue in Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd as to pure economic loss.

Mr Robinson contracted with the builder to construct a house.

Over 12 years later it was found that gas flues installed  were defective and unsafe.

The remedial cost of putting this right was to be £35,000.

The client wasn’t able to bring a claim for breach of contract as it was outside the limitation period for bringing a claim,nor under the N.H.B.C warranty as it was over 10 years.

Mr Robinson tried to bring a claim in negligence but this was struck out by the Technology Court.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Jackson LJ clarified the position that law does not automatically impose on a contract tortious duties co-extensive with the contractual terms.

It is necessary to look at the relationship between the parties and whether the contractor has assumed responsibility to advise.

This would be in a situation such as were a a supplier of services gives  professional advice such as a Solicitor,Surveyor or Architect were it is a reasonable expectation that the advice relied on will have financial consequences.

Unless the contractor expressly accepts a  liability in negligence, the liability will be limited to that  under the building contract, and the contractor will not be liable in negligence for defective works, other than when the negligence causes death or physical injury. The court also stated Builders were allowed to exclude liability in their contracts in negligence.

This decision clarifies the law finally as  to pure economic loss.

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.

A recent case shows how easy it is to contract by email.

The case arose out of property sale.

The property was being marketed on a  a multi agency basis.

Nicholas Prestige homes sent an email to Mrs Neal stating that they were appointed along with the other agents up until 31 December 2007 after that they were to be the sole agent.

The email was sent with the agents terms and conditions for both sole and multi agency sales.

Mrs Neal  emailed back stating “that’s fine, look forward to viewings.”

The property was sold by another agent but during the period after 31 December were Nicholas Prestige were sole agents.

The Court of Appeal held the agent was not entitled to their commission as they had not sold the property but they were entitled to to damages as they lost the chance of earning that commission and the damages would be the lost commission.

The Court also stated it didn’t matter that the seller hadn’t read the email or the terms and conditions and the acceptance of the contract was her reply “thats Fine”

Be very careful that you read emails and attachments before replying as there may well be as in this case a binding contract.

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.

Mr Peter Armer was formerly employed by the University as its Director of Finance, Resources and Estates.

Mr Armer launched a claim against the University claiming that the allegations made by Professor McCaffery were defamatory and in breach of Mr Armer’s confidentiality agreement from the University of 21^st September 2009.

The University of Cumbria provided an apology by a letter of the 31^st January 2011 and have agreed to pay Mr Armer a sum of damages and his legal costs. The full text of the apology at the bottom of this page.

Ian Carruthers of Armstrong Solicitors stated;

“This is a well deserved success for Mr Armer and  another victory for  the media law team.”

Mr Edward Sankey of Liverpool was innocently included in a programme on ITV.  “Fiddles, Cheats and Scams” was broadcast on the evening of the 26^th October 2010.

Mr Sankey had been showed in the programme and on the ITV website, in a piece as to a scam involving “Con Men” selling forgeries of work by the artist known as “Banksy”.

Mr Sankey was shown by mistake and had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the programme.  Armstrongs sent a Defamation Protocol Letter of Claim and the matter was quickly settled with an agreed award of damages and payment of Mr Sankey’s legal costs.  The apology from ITV states:-

“I am writing in relation to the programme Fiddles, Cheats and Scams recently broadcast on ITV.

The programme included some footage of you in the context of a story about art forgeries due to an innocent and unfortunate editorial mistake.   ITV sincerely regrets this mistake, and wishes to offer its unreserved apology to you for any embarrassment this may have caused.  We readily accept that you are a man of good character, with no criminal convictions, and had no knowledge of or involvement in the matters detailed in the programme.  We emphasise that there was no intention on our part to suggest otherwise, that the pictures and names of the actual criminals were duly reported in the programme, and that the footage of you was simply included due to an error.  I confirm that we have therefore paid compensation to you for this mistake, and your legal costs, and have undertaken to edit the programme before repeating it further.”

Edward Sankey said, “I was shocked to receive a number of telephone calls from friends and family who had seen the programme Fiddles, Cheats and Scams suggesting that I had been involved in serious criminal activity.   Following from that I was the subject of similar comments by neighbours and people in the local pub.  I am pleased that ITV provided an apology and paid me compensation and I am extremely grateful to Armstrongs Solicitors as to the way they dealt with my claim.”

Ian Carruthers  Director of Armstrongs comments ‘This  is another great victory  for the Defamation and Media  team. This cements our reputation  as one of the leading Lawyers in this area.

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 Libel Lawyers Armstrongs writes as to the recent employee Libel claim of Daniels v BBC.

The Claimant worked as an  administrative assistant at the BBC.

Colleagues had made complaints about him that he was difficult to work with and as to the quality of his work.

Capability proceedings were commenced and as a consequence he was dismissed.

The Claimant brought a Libel claim against the BBC in respect of comments made by various former colleagues in a feedback schedule which was produced at the capability meeting.

The BBC brought an application that the words  were incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning for summary judgement and a civil restraint order.

The High Court did not accept that the criticisms in the feedback schedule could be said to make a reasonable person think less of the claimant, nor could they be said to have detrimental impact on the business or professional reputation of the claimant. The comments were simply feedback on the areas on which the claimant needed to improve in his employment. The court did not consider that the job of the claimant as a Administrative Assistant could be said to have a business or professional reputation  for Defamation purposes.

The High Court struck out Daniels’ claim.

There is a big leap from a negative comment, to one which would enable an employee to bring a claim in libel.  In any event the defence of qualified privilege exists in such a situation unless a Claimant can show that the comments were made with malicious intent.

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.

Mosley won £60,000 damages from the News of the World, which had published a story about his private life. He complained that he did not know the newspaper had information on him until he read about it on the day it was published.

Lord Pannick QC is arguing on his behalf that the UK Government is failing in its duty to apply Article 8, which states everyone has the right to respect for his private life and family life.

Mosley is seeking from the court an order that prior notification is given to parties subject to a story to enable them to make an application for an injunction prior to publication.

Lord Panick argues that a victim has no right to a remedy for breach of privacy. Once breached, privacy could not be restored.

The UK government is opposing the application on the grounds that damages is an adequate remedy to Mr Mosley and that a balance needs to be made between a breach of Article 8 and Article 10, a right to freedom of expression.

Whilst the government in this country is currently completing a review of the law it may be that is forced to review substantially how it proceeds if the European Court finds in Mosley’s favour.

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.

The case involved the claimant, who was then aged 13, who suffered an accident at a scout meeting while the boys were playing a game called “Objects in the Dark”.

The game involved boys running around a hall, and then, once the lights were turned out, securing a block to themselves (there were more boys than blocks).  The boy in question collided with a wall.  He sustained  injuries but did not realise the extent until he had a MRI scan in 2007 which revealed the accident had left a ‘permanent impaction injury.’

Proceedings were commenced.

At first instance the judge gave the following decision:

“The issue which I have to decide on the evidence that I have heard, on a balance of probabilities, is whether the Defendant failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the Claimant.  In my judgment there is a breach of that duty here by playing this game with the lights off in circumstances where a competitive game involving 13 year old boys running around in an enclosed space – ‘full pelt’ as it was put – heads down, is involved.  I have made that finding, as I hope is apparent, with a degree of regret because I recognise that it may impinge upon the activities of others in the future.  But in all the circumstances it seems to me there is a breach here; the game played in the dark is dangerous – dangerous to the extent that there is a breach of the duty to take reasonable care.  That breach of duty caused the injury in this case, an injury for which I find the Defendant is liable. “

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.  The decision was not unanimous.  In his dissenting Opinion, Lord Justice Jackson gave in his concluding remarks stated, “It is the function of the law of tort to deter negligent conduct and to compensate those who are the victims of such conduct.  It is not the function of the law of tort to eliminate every iota of risk or to stamp out socially desirable activities”.

The court considered the wider social value of the Scout movement and the added excitement that such games brought and how they encouraged membership.

The court thought however that the value was not outweighed by the risk and the risk could simply be eliminated by turning the lights on.

Lady Justice Smith said:

“Everyone accepts, including the judge, that scouting activities are valuable to society.  Everyone accepts, including the judge, that scouting activities will often properly include an element of risk.  However, that cannot mean that any scouting activity, however risky, is acceptable just because scouting is a very good thing.  The social value of the particular activity must be taken into account in assessing whether the activity was reasonably safe.”

The decision whilst many view disappointing that such activities cannot take place without risk of court proceedings it is a sensible decision which in most cases groups would follow in any event.  It’s a decision that community groups and schools should however take account of.

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.

The Lord Chief Justice has issued guidance to judges as to the use of Twitter in court proceedings.

He stated that the use of micro blogging in court proceedings would be assessed on a case by case basis depending on the risk of interference to the “proper administration of justice”.

The ruling was prompted after journalists had requested its use at  the bail hearing of Julian Assange at the City of Westminster Magistrates courts last week  and permission was granted. District Judge Howard Riddle said he had no objection and several reporters then proceeded to give regular updates as the hearing unfolded.

Later in the week in the High Court Mr Justice Ouseley said Twitter could not be used.

The judicial head, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, found, “There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court, but before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case.”

The Lord Chief Justice has now clarified the position, and will shortly open a consultation on the issue.

The guidance follows the established position that the audience of the court can do what it likes providing not taking photos or using audio equipment , disturbing the court proceedings or interfering with the administration of justice. The guidance is therefore  not likely in the short team to lead to the televising  of court proceedings.

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.

The Court of Appeal in a recent case held that relief from forfeiture could be granted in a case where possession proceedings had been started against a tenant on grounds that the tenant had been in breach of a covenant not to under let the premises for illegal or immoral purposes.

There are two breaches of covenants contained in leases which are usually considered to be incapable of remedy those are a breach of covenant against alienation and as in this case a breach involving illegal immoral use of the property. However the court of Appeal in this case allowed relief. The premises had been used by a sub tenant as a brothel. When the tenant found out about this he took steps to remove the sub tenant and remedy the breach.

The court agreed to grant relief from forfeiture as they found not to do so would be out of all proportion to the breaches involved. The landlord was however granted costs on an indemnity basis. The Court of Appeal took the view that whilst in the past a breach for  immoral or illegal breaches could not be remedied they found it could in this case. It is now not certain for Landlords  that the court in cases thought previously incapable of remedy will find for  the landlord.

If you have a property litigation enquiry call us on 0151 236 3737. To make an online enquiry please fill in the quick form below.

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

The Supreme courts first case on Defamation proceedings has upheld the defence of fair comment and over turned a Court of Appeal decision.

In his comments on the judgment Lord Walker said: “…the defence of fair comment (now to be called honest comment) originated in a narrow form in a society very different from today’s.”

“It was a society in which writers, artists and musicians were supposed to place their works, like wares displayed at market, before a relatively small educated and socially elevated class, and it was in the context of published criticism of their works that the defence developed.

“Millions now talk, and thousands comment in electronically transmitted words, about recent events of which they have learned from television or the Internet.

“Many of the events and the comments on them are no doubt trivial and ephemeral, but from time to time (as the present appeal shows) libel law has to engage with them. The test for identifying the factual basis of honest comment must be flexible enough to allow for this type of case, in which a passing reference to the previous night’s celebrity show would be regarded by most of the public, and may sometimes have to be regarded by the law, as a sufficient factual basis.”

“The whole area merits consideration by the Law Commission, or an expert committee”

“Finally, and fundamentally, has not the time come to recognise that defamation is no longer a field in which trial by jury is desirable? The issues are often complex and jury trial simply invites expensive interlocutory battles, such as the one before this court, which attempt to pre-empt issues from going before the jury.”

So what does this mean in practice.

The comment does not have to give the reader sufficient information to enable the reader to ascertain whether the comment is well founded.

It should however identify in general terms what has lead him to make such comment.The reader should understand what the comment is about and if challenged be able to provide further details and why he gave the comment he did.

The fact that the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, Times Newspapers and Guardian Media Group intervened in the proceedings shows the importance of the case to the media.

The ruling will be welcomed by  campaigners for libel reform and no doubt will be influential  in Lord Neuberger’s  review of libel law.

If you require advice on Libel proceedings then call us or fill in one of our enquiry forms on line.

www.armstrong-law.co.uk

Applying without prejudice to communication between parties to Litigation is usually thought to enable a party to enter into negotiation as to settlement of a claim without the danger of the communication being referred to in proceedings.

There are exceptions to that rule.

Rectification of the agreement where the parties to the agreement can rely on without prejudice negotiations when parties to the agreement say that the agreement does not acurately reflect the intentions of the parties.

A recent case provides a further exception.

Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited and others [2010] UKSC 44.

In this case a dispute arose as to the interpretaion of a clause in a contract.

The Supreme Court held that facts stated in without prejudice emails and discussions could be referred to were evidence as to the meaning of a particular word or term.

It is important to ensure that settlement agreements are clear and unambiguous and not then to be subject to the interpretation of the courts.

If you require advice as to a Comercial Litigation claim then call us or complete an on line enquiry form.

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 Ian Carruthers 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.

Defamation Solicitors Armstrongs writes as to Interim Injunctions.

Interim injunctions in  libel proceedings are very rarely granted.

It is therefore of great interest to find in recent cases that the Courts have granted a series of Interim Injunctions.  Is this a change in the Courts approach?

The case of Bonnnard v Perryman (1891) stated that interim injunctions should not be granted in a defamation case were the Defendant indicates an intention to prove the truth of what they publish or transmit.

The Human Rights Act permits publication except in circumstances where there is a real likelihood of establishing that the publication shouldn’t be allowed.

In the case of Greene v Associated Newspapers (2005) the Court also followed the approach on interim injunctions in libel cases unless it was clear that the Defence wouldn’t succeed at trial.

However in September a solicitor succeeded before Mr Justice Eady in the High Court and was awarded damages of £17,500 and an interim injunction against the Solicitors from Hell Website.

In this and two other cases against the website the Court considered there was no evidence to support the allegation and Defence and an injunction was granted.

Whilst these cases are rare the decision to grant the injunctions is not in itself unusual and does follow previous decisions.

If you require advice on bringing or defending Defamation proceedings then call Ian Carruthers on 0151 236 3737 or fill in an online enquiry form.

Liverpool Commercial Litigation Solicitors Armstrongs writes as to liquidated damages clauses in Commercial Contracts.

In the recent case in the High Court of AZIMUT – BENETTI  SPA V HEALEY [2010] EWAC 2234 (COMM.)

The court was asked to decide on the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause.

The Seller was contracted to build a yacht.

The buyer failed to make the first installment payment for the yacht.  The seller exercised its right under the liquidated damages clause which allowed the seller to terminate the contract and to claim the sum of 7.6 million Euros which represented 20% of the purchase price.   That clause also enabled the buyer if they had made installment payments of more than the liquidated damages clause to have the excess refunded.

It has long been the Court’s view that clauses are only enforceable if the clause represents a genuine pre estimate of the loss.

The High Court held that the clause was commercially justifiable and the seller was entitled to the 7.6 million Euros.

The Court looked at surrounding correspondence between the parties and considered that the clause was fair because it was in the commercial interest of both parties.

The case indicates that the Courts are reluctant to interfere in Commercial Agreements where both parties have the benefit of legal advice.

If you have a Commercial Litigation enquiry then call us on 0151 236 3737 or fill in one of our online enquiry forms.

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 Solicitors director, Ian Carruthers, 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.”

Lord Young’s review of Health and Safety Law is a typical Tory crowd pleaser.
Health and Safety legislation since its introduction by the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 has reduced the number of fatal injuries to employees by a staggering 70 per cent.

Yet again, stories of children being forced to wear goggles when playing conkers and extraordinary paperwork when children are taken on school trips is introduced to cloud the issue.

Yesterday’s announcement is an attempt to be anti-European and anti-lawyer and distracts from the immense effects Health and Safety legislation has had on our lives.
Lord Young managed to introduce in his argument the costs claimed by lawyers in actions against employers and against the NHS.   If such claims were settled at an earlier point, those costs would be greatly reduced.

As the Association for Personal Injury lawyers (APIL) was quick to point out, the actual number of personal injury claims has fallen during the past ten years, rather than risen as you might have expected from Lord Young’s tirade.

At a time when the Country faces an economic crisis the review of this area seems like a distraction.

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.”

The company has taken on 150 new cases, potentially worth £1million in fees, since the launch of its latest venture last November.

Speaking about their success, Ian Carruthers, a Director at Armstrongs Solicitors, said: “We have been surprised by the high-level of demand for our service targeting victims of professional negligence.

“We knew before we launched six months ago that the level of professional service people received in all walks of life was a problem but we had no idea just how serious that problem was until now.

“We believe the significant increase in claims of professional negligence can in part be put down to the fall-out from the economic collapse as people are scrutinising the professional advice they receive more closely than ever before.

“Our clients – like so many others – believe they have been let down by solicitors, accountants, doctors and many other types of professionals who are supposed to offer a first rate service. We even have a case against a psychic.

“It very quickly became clear to us that we are offering a dedicated service that people have been crying out for.”

To coincide with the expansion Armstrongs created a new website and ran an extensive advertising campaign urging victims of professional negligence to get in touch.

The website – beenletdown.com – was piloted in the Preston area before being rolled out across Merseyside at the start of the year.

Since the website went live the Old Hall Street-based business has received more than 1,500 enquiries, and has employed two new members of staff to deal with the extra demand.

Mr. Carruthers added: “Our aim at Armstrongs is to become the market leader in the pursuit of claims of professional negligence. This is a growing area of law and with 150 new cases in the last six months we have the potential to bring in an extra £1m worth of new fees.

“Our clients know that no matter how much they’ve been let down by others, they will always get the best service possible from the professional team at Armstrongs Solicitors.”

Armstrongs Solicitors was set up almost three years ago, and now employs over 100 people, handling thousands of cases in the North West and across the UK.

In addition to its professional negligence unit, Armstrongs offers a wide range of services to businesses, private clients, as well as running one of the most successful personal injury departments of any law firm in the UK.

Read the article in the Liverpool Daily Post - May 4th 2010

Formerly of Cardiff-based Mooneerams Solicitors, Mr. Kinsella brings with him five years of experience in litigation. He has gained expertise in both claimant and defendant litigation and clinical and professional negligence matters.

He joins Armstrongs Solicitors as the Old Hall Street-based company is expected to announce a record period of year-on-year growth, with the final figures due to be released in the next few weeks.

Mr. Kinsella will work in the commercial department dealing with a range of matters including commercial litigation and compliance, professional and clinical negligence matters.

Director, Ian Carruthers, said: “We are delighted to welcome Paul onboard. This is a very exciting time at Armstrongs Solicitors. The launch of our dedicated service handling claims of professional negligence, backed by a dedicated website beenletdown.com, has been a roaring success.

“We have brought Paul in to help capitalise on the popularity of this new service and to help grow it in the near future.”

Armstrongs Solicitors was set up almost three years ago and now employs over 100 people, handling thousands of cases in the North West and across the UK.

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.

Ian Carruthers, a Director at Liverpool-based Armstrongs Solicitors, spoke out following the recent revelation that more than a quarter of the £25m paid out after hospital blunders in Merseyside and Cheshire went straight to solicitors.

Mr. Carruthers believes the media storm that followed masked the reality of a very serious problem within the NHS, and that is the issue of openness in hospitals when things go wrong.

Mr. Carruthers, a professional negligence expert, said: “Never mind all this talk about solicitors’ fees, the real problem is the culture of cover-up that has crept into the NHS.

“This month a new law has come into force requiring hospitals to send anonymous reports of mistakes to a central database. Failure to comply will lead to prosecution.

“But the new reporting system by the Care Quality Commission, the health watchdog, has angered patients’ groups because it does not require doctors to share the information with victims or bereaved relatives.

“Why should victims or their families be left in the dark when something goes wrong? This culture of secrecy has lead to a groundswell of opinion that some hospitals are covering up for fatal blunders and issuing misinformation following errors.”

Mr. Carruthers said Armstrongs Solicitors was currently handling a number of claims that involve allegations of cover-up by medics and NHS professionals.

He added: “Since we launched beenletdown.com, our dedicated professional negligence website six months ago, we were shocked by the number of claims of cover-up involving the NHS.

“We are currently acting on behalf of a family who claim a GP lied at their son’s inquest, and falsified medical records in order to cover his own back.

“It is this culture of cover-up that is the real issue we should all be discussing when we talk about NHS blunders, and not spurious stories about lawyer’s fees.”

Read the article in the Liverpool Daily Post – April 6th 2010

• Listen to Ian Carruthers discuss this case

A police investigation has been launched into the conduct of Dr Renjith Nair, who prescribed the pain killers for 18-day-old Calum Smith. He is accused of failing to check Calum’s temperature and brushing aside worries over his breathing

The General Medical Council has also launched an investigation.

And now, a year on from Calum’s death, his grieving parents, Lianne Sabin and Mark Smith, want to know why the under-fire GP has been allowed to continue practising at his surgery in Preston, Lancs.

Miss Sabin, 21, said: “Our son was given no chance because of this man. He refused to even get out of his chair to examine him, despite our protests that he was having cold sweats and hadn’t fed for 15 hours.

“Our concerns were brushed aside and Calum was sent home with 2.5ml of paracetamol. I was extremely worried and when I asked Dr Nair to reassure me he insisted that Calum would be fine.

“But he was far from fine. As far as we are concerned our beautiful baby boy was sent home to die. It has taken a year for our complaints to be taken seriously by the police and the GMC.

“He must be suspended with immediate effect until all investigations into his working practices are complete.”

Newborn Calum had been in and out of the Royal Preston Hospital three times in his short life, with concerns over his breathing.

Just 24 hours after he was sent home from the Royal Preston for a third time Calum’s distressed parents took him to their local GP, at Docklands Medical Centre in the city.

Since his death the Royal Preston Hospital has admitted concerns over Calum’s breathing “had not been shared clearly” with hospital staff and say he should have been kept in when he was admitted for the third time.

An inquest last September into Calum’s untimely death concluded a narrative verdict, with the cause of death given as heart failure.

Ian Carruthers, a solicitor and professional negligence expert with online professional negligence specialists, beenletdown.com, has taken on the case on behalf of Calum’s parents.

Mr. Carruthers said: “Calum Smith was let down by the medical profession, from the Royal Preston Hospital right through to Dr Nair.

“That fact has been very difficult for the family to accept but equally difficult has been the litany of unanswered questions that remain following Calum’s untimely passing.”

The family claim that Dr Nair lied to the Coroner’s Court by declaring he had given Calum a full medical examination. They also accuse the GP of falsifying medical records, most notably by stating that Calum had a normal temperature.

Mr. Carruthers added: “Our client disputes the claim by Dr Nair that he gave Calum a full medical examination, and that their son had a normal temperature. He was suffering cold sweats and was freezing to the touch.

“These are extremely serious allegations, but our client is not motivated by revenge, they simply want to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.”

Notes to Editors

Beenletdown.com was launched last November by Armstrongs Solicitors, one of the UK’s fastest growing law firms.

It was first piloted in the Preston region and rolled-out across Merseyside in February.

In four months the firm has taken almost 1,500 calls relating to allegations of professional negligence, mainly against doctors, lawyers, surveyors and dentists.

All claims are handled by solicitors experienced in winning cases against professionals, who work on a No Win No Fee basis.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Gary Quinn at Mason Media on 0151 239 5053 or 07745 962401 or email gary@masonmedia.co.uk

Armstrongs Solicitors has recruited a health expert to join its new department investigating claims of professional negligence.

The leading Liverpool law firm has been inundated with claims against professionals, including doctors, surveyors and lawyers, since the launch of a dedicated website targeting victims of professional negligence.

Beenletdown.com was piloted in Preston late last year and due to its success has now been rolled out across Merseyside.

It is backed by an extensive radio advertising campaign.

Ian Armstrong, a Director at Armstrongs, said he is delighted to announce the arrival of a fully-trained and experienced NHS professional to the www.beenletdown.com team, and hopes to add to it further in the near future.

Mr. Carruthers said: “We have been very pleased with the initial response after rolling our dedicated professional negligence service out across Merseyside.

“Due to this success, and our continuing success in the Preston area, we have recruited a fully-trained and very experienced NHS professional. Her role is to help with initial assessment claims and bring her expertise in the health sector to www.beenletdown.com.

“This is merely the beginning and we hope to announce further recruitments to this growing new department in the very near future.”

Armstrongs Solicitors has been inundated with claims against these and many other professions since the launch of a dedicated website targeting victims of professional negligence.

Beenletdown.com was piloted in Preston late last year and due to its success has now been rolled out across Merseyside.

It is backed by an extensive radio advertising campaign.

Ian Carruthers, a Director at Armstrongs, says he has been shocked by the serious nature of many of the claims against people such as plastic surgeons, fellow solicitors and surveyors.

Speaking at the launch of www.beenletdown.com in Liverpool, Mr. Carruthers said: “People often feel helpless when they are let down by a professional in whom they have placed their trust and often their livelihood.

“It is important that when someone has a genuine claim for professional negligence that they feel there is someone they can turn to who will give them the right advice.

“Since we launched www.beenletdown.com last year we have been inundated with very serious claims against various professionals from GP’s to surveyors and solicitors.

“I am concerned at the serious nature of many of these claims, including allegations of misconduct that lead to the tragic death of a new-born baby.

“People need to know that when they go to a professional they are afforded the proper service, and if they are not we will be there to help bring those responsible to task.

“Now there is no hiding place for those guilty of professional negligence. Our experienced team will do everything they can to get the results our clients deserve.”

Armstrongs Solicitors has grown to more than 100 staff in just over two years, handling thousands of cases on behalf of clients in the North West and across the UK, making it the fastest growing law firm in Liverpool.

In addition to its professional negligence unit, Armstrongs offers a wide range of services to businesses, private clients, as well as running one of the most successful personal injury departments of any law firm in the UK.

Mr. Carruthers added: “Armstrongs has grown rapidly during the past two years attracting some fantastic legal talent from across the region.

“We want to offer something fresh and dynamic in the North West legal market place.

“Unlike other firms we do not claim to offer everything. Instead we concentrate on areas in which we have experience and a proven track record. And www.beenletsdown.com is merely an extension of the already excellent service we provide.”

Beenletdown.com was piloted in the Preston area late last year and due to its success has now been rolled out across Merseyside.

The launch is backed by a three-month radio advertising campaign, with ads promoting beenletdown.com running across Radio City, Rock FM and City Talk.

Ian Carruthers, a Director at Armstrongs Solicitors, said: “We were delighted with the response we got from our radio advertising campaign when we piloted beenletdown.com in Preston. So it seemed logical to invest in more of the same in Liverpool.

“The reach we can expect via Radio City and City Talk is second to none on Merseyside. We are expecting a high return for our investment and looking forward to the boost this campaign will provide for beenletdown.com.

Young and old gathered at Liverpool’s stunning Alma De Cuba Bar and Restaurant for an evening of song from the city’s internationally acclaimed choir, Sense of Sound, accompanied by Mulled wine and mince pies.

The event raised over £1,500 for NWCRF, and sets Armstrongs well on their way to reaching their target of £10,000 over the course of the next 12 months.

Ian Carruthers, a director at Armstrongs, said: “It was a fantastic evening for a fantastic cause and we are very thankful to all who helped by purchasing tickets for the event.

“We are also very thankful to North West Cancer Research Fund who helped make the evening run so smoothly and of course the singers with the Sense of Sound Choir.

“We hope to make it an annual celebration of all things Christmas and a time to raise money for good causes. It’s the perfect time of year for us all to give a little something back.”

Eleven ‘and a half’ Santas from Armstrong Solicitors braved the wintery weather to compete in Liverpool’s Santa Dash at the weekend.  The eleven members of staff, plus one of the team’s 23 month old daughter joined together to complete the 5k run round the city centre.

Armstrong’s participation in the race raised sacks of cash for charity, with the final count exceeding an impressive £500, which will go towards the firm’s nominated charity, North West Cancer Research Fund.

The Armstrong crew ran alongside the crowd of over 7,000 Santas who took part in this year’s race.

Ian Carruthers, a Director at Armstrong solicitors, commented:  ”We were delighted to be able to put forward such a large team of Santas this year, and the amount of sponsorship secured was really impressive. The Santa Dash is an energetic but fun way for all the family to raise funds, and North West Cancer Research Fund is a very worthwhile cause.”

Oh Come All ye Faithful….and join Armstrongs Solicitors for a very special night of Christmas Carols, mulled wine and mince pies, in aid of North West Cancer Research Fund.

Set against the backdrop of Liverpool’s spectacular Alma de Cuba Bar and Restaurant witness the city’s cutting edge, internationally acclaimed, Sense of Sound Choir bring their unique style to the Christmas classics.

Ian Armstrong, a Director at Armstrongs Solicitors, said: “‘Celebrate will be a Carol concert like no other, so come along on Thursday 10^th December between 6pm and 8pm and get festive with Armstrongs.

“Sense of Sound are amazing, truly unique and they are set to perform in what most surely be one of the most amazing venues in the UK. The combination of Sense of Sound and Alma de Cuba is simply too good to miss.”

Sense of Sound Choir were among the final six choral groups in the BBC’s ‘Last Choir Standing’ competition last year.

Since starting in 1992, they have rapidly become recognised as one of the most innovative and distinctive choirs in Britain. Sense of Sound have also collaborated with many top names in music, including Blur man Damon Albarn, ex-Roxy Music innovator Brian Eno and former Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton.

Anne Jackson, Chief Executive, North West Cancer Research Fund (NWCRF), said: “Sense of Sound Choir is enormously popular, winning fans wherever they go and we are very fortunate to be working with them on an event which will certainly get the festive season off to a tuneful start.

“Alma de Cuba is the perfect setting for a concert like Celebrate, there will definitely be some magic in the air.”

Tickets for Celebrate cost £12 and include a glass of mulled wine and a mince pie. They must be purchased in advance and are available by calling NWCRF on 0151 709 2919, or from Armstrongs Solicitors.

Dinner reservations are also available by contacting Alma de Cuba on 0151 702 7394, Alma de Cuba will donate £5 to NWCRF per reservation during the event.

Photo above: Left to right, Ian Carruthers Armstrongs Solicitors, Jennifer John Sense of Sound Choir Manager, Laura Stokes Armstrongs, Anne Jackson, Chief Executive, NWCRF, and Rob Preston, Alma de Cuba

The leading Liverpool law firm nominated NWCRF because of their vital work in the pursuit of finding the causes of cancer and how it spreads, and pledged to raise £10,000 over the next twelve months.

Armstrongs said they plan to reach their target figure with the help of a number of corporate fundraising events, including an auction night and various sponsored runs.

Ian Carruthers, a Director at Armstrongs, said: “This is the first time we, as a company, have nominated a chosen charity and we couldn’t think of a better and more worthwhile recipient than NWCRF.

“It is local and provides a vitally important service. Almost everybody will have been affected by cancer in some way and the ongoing work conducted by NWCRF is vital in trying to find a cure.

“We are delighted to be able to help in any small way.

“We will hold a number of charity auction nights and some colleagues have already committed themselves to taking part in local running events to help us reach our target.”

NWCRF has raised over £28million over the last 60 years and currently has funding in three research centres at the University of Liverpool, Lancaster and Bangor.

Anne Jackson, Chief Executive, NWCRF said: “We are delighted to welcome Armstrongs’ support.”

A mother-of-three won a landmark legal victory last week after a judge quashed her £8,000 credit card debt because she had  been wrongly sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

A county court judge ruled Lynne Thorius, 49, from South Shields, was charged thousands of pounds by MBNA for an insurance policy she never asked for.

Subsequent reports claimed it would open the floodgates for similar rulings.

But a closer look leads me to believe this will not be the case.

Ms Thorius’ claim was extreme because she ticked the box saying she specifically did not want PPI – and still received it.

I don’t think this particular practice is widespread.

But what we have seen is a massive increase in the number of people who have been told PPI cover is compulsory, meaning they have to take out PPI cover to get their loan.

This simply puts desperate people in more debt.

Last month Armstrongs was successful in winning a claim against Halifax Bank of Scotland for a woman in this very situation. We obtained a declaration pursuant to Section 142 of the Consumer Credit 1974 that her loan was unenforceable

Research suggests some 40m PPI policies have been sold in Britain in the past six years, making it the second biggest-selling insurance product on the market.

This is an issue that’s only going to get bigger.

Merseyside Police has admitted liability after Luay Almulla, of Formby, was bitten by one of its dogs in April this year.

Mr Almulla, 27, has been unable to return to work since his ordeal, due to the injuries inflicted.

He is represented by leading Liverpool law firm, Armstrongs Solicitors.

Ian Carruthers, who heads Armstrongs Litigation Department, said he was pleased the police swiftly accepted responsibility but he also demanded an apology.

He said: “This was a very nasty incident, his life has been turned upside down.

“I am pleased Merseyside Police has accepted responsibility for this unprovoked attacked by a supposedly well-trained animal.

“But we are also seeking an apology from Merseyside Police and an update on what happened – if anything – to the dog after the attack.

“Due to the extent of the injuries inflicted I would expect a payout to Mr Almulla in the region of £20,000, if not more.”

Speaking out after the police admitted responsibility for the attack Mr Almulla revealed the affect the ugly incident has had on his life, branding it “nothing short of a nightmare”.

He said: “I’ve waited almost six months for Merseyside Police to admit they were at fault, and I’m still waiting for my apology.

“My life is in ruins following what happened that night. I haven’t been able to work since I was attacked, I’m unable to pay my bills and I’m facing eviction from my flat.

“It’s been nothing short of a nightmare.”

The attack happened while Mr Almulla was guarding the Waste Recycling Centre in Otterspool on the night of 26^th April.

A man broke into the premises and, believing he was armed, a CCTV operator called the police. Mr Almulla went to meet the officers, who had an Alsatian dog with them, at the Jericho Lane site.

Following a quick search of the site, the dog suddenly turned on Mr Almulla and viciously attacked him.

The victim had over 30 puncture wounds in his arm where the Alsatian repeatedly bit him and tried to drag him to the ground.

Recounting the incident Mr Almulla said: “I couldn’t believe it when the dog went for me. It had already got my scent, and knew I was not the intruder. I was even stood next to one of the police officers at the time.

“The dog was repeatedly called off the attack, but eventually had to be forced off my arm – I’ve never seen a dog behave like that.”

Mr Almulla insisted he is not motivated by money.

He added: “This isn’t about money. My life has been shattered through no fault of my own. Is it really too much for Merseyside Police to apologise?

“And I need to know if that dog is still out there prowling the streets. If it was anybody else’s dog it would have been dealt with, why should it be any different for the police?

“After all the police have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public – a dog that attacks for no reason, and then continues to attack even when called off, certainly doesn’t ensure that.”

Beenletdown.com is being piloted in the city by Armstrongs Solicitors, whose head office is in Liverpool.

The site, which is being advertised on radio and in newspapers, will help people make claims against professionals such as dentists, doctors, accountants, solicitors, surveyors and architects.

Armstrongs Solicitors has grown to more than 100 staff in just over two years, handling thousands of cases on behalf of clients in the North West and across the UK.

Launching www.beenletdown.com, Armstrongs’ director Ian Carruthers said: “People often feel helpless when they are let down by a professional in whom they have placed their trust and often their very livelihood.

“It is important that when someone has a genuine claim for professional negligence that they feel there is someone they can turn to who will give them the right advice.

“We have noticed an increasing number of claims against professionals during the past couple of years. We have a dedicated team which is experienced in cases of this kind so clients know they are in safe hands.”

In addition to its professional negligence unit, Armstrongs offers a wide range of services to businesses, private clients, as well as running one of the most successful personal injury departments of any law firm in the UK.

Ian added: “Armstrongs has grown rapidly during the past two years attracting some fantastic legal talent from across the region.

“We want to offer something fresh and dynamic in the North West legal market place.

“Unlike other firms we do not claim to offer everything. Instead we concentrate on areas in which we have experience and a proven track record.”

Administrators were then appointed by Barclays Bank pursuant to the debenture.

One of the directors of Carson Country Homes, Mr Carter, then claimed that the signature was not his own and had been forged and as a consequence the debenture wasn’t valid and the administrators were not properly appointed.

The administrators made an application to the Court.  When giving evidence Mr Jewson, the other director, said it was common practice for him to sign on behalf of Mr Carter.  Mr Jewson didn’t tell Mr Carter about this particular transaction, but simply signed the document as usual.

It was held that the debenture had not been executed in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 but it was found that because of the previous dealings Mr Jewson had authority on behalf of the company to warrant to the bank that all formalities had been complied with.

* For advice on any company related matters contact Armstrongs’ solicitor Ian Carruthers.

This is due to an embarrassing blunder 25 years ago by the then Conservative Government, which failed to properly enact the Video Recordings Act 1984.

The UK Government had the responsibility for notifying the European Commission when it brought in the Act and failed to do so.

As a consequence, until the blunder is corrected, and it is thought that it could take at least 3 months to do so,  DVDs and video games can be sold to minors which would normally only be sold to the over 18s.

Proceedings had been issued against Google for slander as to defamatory comments made on a forum which appeared in the Search engine results for Metropolitan International Schools.

Mr. Justice Eady ruled that Google was not a publisher of the comments, only a facilitator through automated results and therefore could not be held responsible for them.

He said: “When a snippet is thrown up on the user’s screen in response to his search, it points him in the direction of an entry somewhere on the web that corresponds to a greater or lesser extent, to the search terms he has typed in.

“It is for him to access or not, as he chooses, Google has merely, by the provision of its search service, played the role of a facilitator.”

Mr. Justice Eady made it clear that if someone feels that they have been defamed by material on a website then they need to address the complaint to the person who actually wrote and published the material and not a search engine, which merely provides a searchable index of content on the internet.

Commenting on the case, Ian Carruthers, of Armstrongs Solicitors, said: “The Judgment doesn’t offer absolute protection to search engines.  In this particular case Google had made efforts to block the offending entries.   It is likely therefore that the search engine will be expected to take similar steps to block URLs when notified of defamatory statements.”

* For advice on any defamation related matter please contact Ian Carruthers.

Ian is responsible for running the Commercial department, professional negligence, commercial litigation and compliance.

Joanne and Samantha are responsible for overseeing the firm’s personal injury teams.

Senior director Alan Wharton continues to provide overall supervision of the firm, while also specialising in conveyancing, wills, probate and accounts.

The firm has also appointed Dawn O’Brien to the position of Chief Executive with responsibility for all non-fee earners and the costs department.

In just two years, Armstrongs Solicitors has grown to more than 100 staff handling thousands of cases on behalf of clients locally and across the UK.

Alan Wharton said: “These promotions are recognition of how rapidly Armstrongs has grown during the past two years and the need to strengthen our senior management team.

“We are discovering that clients like the fresh but professional approach we bring to our work across our business, private and personal injury departments.

“Unlike most other firms, we expect to continue recruiting at all levels during the coming months as we seek to ensure we are constantly able to meet our clients’ demands.”

A Liverpool man who was brutally mauled by a police dog in the city has decided to take legal action against the police.

Twenty-seven year old, Luay Almulla, was working on the night of 26th April when he was attacked by the dog.

He has suffered both physical and psychological injury and has been unable to return to work following his ordeal.

The attack happened while he was guarding the Waste Recycling Centre in Otterspool.

An intruder broke into the complex just before 10pm and Mr Almulla was quickly joined by the police, who had an Alsatian dog with them to help with the situation.

Following a quick search of the site, the dog suddenly turned on Mr Almulla and viciously attacked him.

The victim had over 30 puncture wounds in his arm where the dog had repeatedly bitten him and tried to drag him to the ground.

Mr Almulla said, “I couldn’t believe it when the dog went for me. It had already got my scent, and knew I was not the intruder. I was even stood next to one of the police officers at the time.

“The dog was repeatedly called off the attack, but eventually had to be forced off my arm – I’ve never seen a dog behave like that.”

Mr Almulla has had no apology from Merseyside Police since it happened nearly three months ago.

He has instructed Armstrongs Solicitors, to represent him.

Ian Carruthers who heads Armstrongs Litigation Department, said: “Mr Almulla was attacked by an animal that is supposed to be highly trained and obedient.

“The police need to accept responsibility and compensate him for this nightmare.”

Mr Almulla added: “If it had been any dog other than a police dog, it would have been dealt with. I have no idea whether this dog is still prowling the streets.

“The police have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public – a dog that attacks for no reason, and then continues to attack, even when called off can not be in those interests.”

Ian Carruthers of Armstrongs Solicitors commented in response to the news of the collapse that any compensation would have to cover potential financial loss for possessions, increased rent, expenses from loss of home and any physical or psychiatric injury.

Some of the residents have now joined the legal fight for damages with Armstrongs.

Katherine and Marcella O’Hare are among those who are seeking legal help. They were asleep in their beds when the crane and 55 tonnes of concrete blocks smashed into their building at Midday on 6th July.

Katherine, who works night shifts, said, “It sounded just like a huge explosion. We ran to the window and all we could see was falling debris – We are lucky to have got out alive.

“Our lives have been turned upside-down. We have had little information on our situation or rights from the management firm so we decided we had to take legal action.”

Both women have experienced sleepless nights and emotional stress since the crane collapse last week.

Ian Carruthers of Armstrongs Solicitors said: “Katherine and Marcella are claiming damages for the emotional trauma that they have suffered as a result of the incident.

“Post traumatic stress is a real possibility for a lot of the affected residents, especially those who were in the buildings at the time of the collapse.

“Claim payments will depend largely upon how severe the physical or psychiatric injury is and long they are affected by it – some could see quite large payments.”

He stated that: “Too many lives have been lost as a result of a Police macho culture.

“New rules are required to ensure that motorists and pedestrians are protected in order to halt this alarming increase.”

Following the release of the figures, the IPCC revealed plans to create a ‘mandatory pursuit policy’ to combat rising numbers of people killed in car chases.

At present, different policies are used by different forces which can cause confusion for the public.

Ian Carruthers added: “The IPCC’s call for a ‘mandatory pursuit policy’ is long overdue – if the Police don’t know the rules, how are the public supposed to know their rights?”

ARMSTRONGS Solicitors has been signed up by Liverpool’s City Talk 105.9 as its resident legal experts.

Ian Carruthers can be heard each Wednesday lunchtime between 12 and 1 answering listeners’ legal issues on the station’s Legal Surgery.

In addition, Liverpool’s fastest growing law firm is sponsoring the City Talk travel bulletins with the name being heard on both the Breakfast and Drive shows.

Ian said: “We are thrilled to have been signed up by City Talk 105.9 to provide listeners with weekly legal advice.

“Like Armstrongs, the station has grown rapidly during the past year and we are delighted to have teamed up with City Talk.

“We will be aiming to give listeners clear, concise and practical legal advice on a wide range of matters.”

Ian joined Armstrongs, which is based at No 1 Old Hall Street, earlier this year and has almost 20 years’ experience in commercial litigation with particular knowledge of professional negligence and defamation matters.

Ian said: “We have a new look, new website and lots of new people and we hope that partnerships such as City Talk will help us spread the word about the firm as far and as wide as possible.”

Sarah was previously at Rex Makin and Co where she was an experienced litigation lawyer specializing in claims against the police.

She has joined up again with Ian Carruthers, formerly a partner at Rex Makin and Co, and now heading up the commercial litigation department at Armstrongs.

In just two years, Armstrongs Solicitors has grown to more than 100 staff providing legal advice on commercial, private and personal injury matters.

Ian said: “Sarah built a great reputation for her litigation work while at Rex Makin and Co and we are delighted that she has chosen to join Armstrongs.”

Two female protesters arrested and detained by police may have a case under the Human Rights Act, according to Armstrongs’ lawyer Ian Carruthers.

Footage has been released of a protester being dragged to the ground after asking a policeman for his identification number.  The video shows a protester being held by the throat by a police officer.

The incident is alleged to have occurred when officers were policing a demonstration at Kingsnorth power station in Kent in August last year.

The video shows Emily Apple asking for the policeman’s number to which he responded: “I don’t have to tell you”.

Ms Apple insisted that the police officer provide his number and asked a fellow protester to take a picture of him. Moments later it appears that both women were dragged to the floor and put in the stress position.

Ms Apple and fellow protestor Val Swain were arrested and then detained for 4 days before being released without charge.  It is not known what action the protesters are to take against the Police, while the footage of the incident has been handed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Ian Carruthers said: “An issue arises out of the 1988 Human Rights Act which included in it a number of articles which covered the right to protest.  These are Article 11 – the right to peaceful assembly, Article 10 – the right to freedom of expression, Article 9 – the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Article 8 – the right to respect private and family life.

“It may be the case that the protesters will convince the Courts to challenge the actions of the police.  The incident is one of a long line of incidents involving the Police. Some commentators believe that the powers under various new Acts of Parliament since the Human Rights Act have prevented the free movement of protesters and free expression of political protest.”

•    If you believe you have a claim against the police, please contact Ian Carruthers on 0151 236 3737.

To read the full articles please click on the pictures below:

It is alleged that the injuries – known as Non Freezing Cold Injury (NFCI) – suffered by soldiers were caused as a consequence of sub standard training equipment and supervision.

The symptoms include sore feet, fingernails, severe pain and varying levels of disability as a consequence of NFCI.

The total claim against the MOD could be in excess of £6million.

Tasers are used to incapacitate suspects by discharging an electric current. They were introduced in 2004 and until now have been used only by specially trained firearms officers.

There are fears that these plans will make thousands of the devices available to officers who have no specialist training, which could lead to Tasers being used inappropriately. There have already been incidents when there have been question marks over the use of Tasers, for example footage was posted on YouTube last week apparently showing a Taser being used on a man several times while he was being restrained by a number of officers.

It seems some police forces share these concerns and have said they will not be giving the devices to non-trained staff, and at least one force has said they do not want any extra weapons as there is no operational need for them.

Despite this the Government seems set to go ahead with their plans and it remains to be seen how the extra devices will be used and what effect this will have on public confidence in the police.

Many tenants are not aware as to their rights to remain in occupation of a business property.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 allows a business tenant to be granted a new lease once their existing tenancy has come to an end.

It is important to establish that your lease has such a right and has not been excluded.

If a landlord is able to bring a tenancy to an end by service of a notice on the tenant such a notice has to state whether or not the landlord is prepared to grant a new lease and on what terms.

If a landlord seeks to oppose the granting of a new lease, it is important that advice is taken from your solicitor to protect your rights and enable an application to be made to the Court.

Failure to make such an application will result in you losing your right to remain at the property but not your right to compensation.

* If you  require any advice on the terms in your lease or you have been served with a notice by your landlord then please contact Ian Carruthers in our Business Services department for free initial advice.

A MEDIA officer for a group campaigning against the arms trade won a ground-breaking legal case after judges ruled police had breached his human rights.

The Appeal Court decided that police had overstepped the mark by taking photos of Andrew Wood at a protest and keeping them on file.

In the judgement that could change the way UK police forces monitor protesters, the Met Police was ordered to destroy all photos of Mr Wood.

Mr Wood, who had never been arrested, attended the AGM of Reed Elsevier PLC, parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions, which runs arm trade fairs. He was entitled to be at the meeting because he had bought a share in the company.
While attending the meeting, Mr Wood’s photograph was taken by police after allegedly being seen talking to violent activists.

Mr Wood complained that his right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act had been breached. He lost his original case, but now Appeal Court judges have ruled in his favour.

The importance of this case is that the taking of the photographs did not in itself constitute an action.  What was unlawful was the retention of those photographs during the time when it was obvious that no criminal activity had been committed by Mr Wood.

* For advice on actions against the police please telephone Sarah Sykes.

A property developer fell victim to failing to put in place a formal business agreement.

The case concerns an agreement between developer James Cobbe and a property management company.

It was agreed between the parties that Cobbe, at his own expense, would apply for planning permission to demolish a block of flats which were currently on the site and develop six houses.

It was agreed with the management company that when planning permission was obtained, the property would be sold to him by the management company for £12 million.

He would then develop it and pay once the 6 houses had been constructed 50% of any amount which exceeded gross proceeds of sale of £24 million.
After planning permission was granted the management company changed the deal and sought £20 million for the property purchase and 40% of the proceeds of sale over £40 million.
Cobbe at first agreed to the changes, but subsequently insisted on adherence to the terms of the original agreement and issued proceedings.

The House of Lords eventually held that Cobbe was only entitled to recover from the management company an amount, which would be significantly less than either deal, which would reflect the time and expense that he had spent on obtaining the initial planning permission.

His Lordship’s view was that it was not the Court’s job to intervene and rescue business people who failed to instruct solicitors to negotiate a formal written agreement.

If you are to enter into any business agreement it is important that you take legal advice.

* For advice on Commercial Agreements please call Ian Carruthers for free initial advice.

The bank failed to attend the final hearing and as a consequence a £15,000 credit card debt was held to be unenforceable and the Solicitors awarded their legal costs.

If you have a pre April 2007 credit card, hire purchase or loan agreement and want advice as to whether or not your agreement is unenforceable, or a payment protection policy over £5,000 which you think might have been mis-sold to you contact us for free initial consultation today.

A spokesman for the bank said: “We wouldn’t comment on the settlement of an individual case. The circumstances surrounding the case were unique. We will be defending any future actions of this nature on the basis that all HBOS agreements are documented and processed in accordance with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.”

In just two years, Armstrongs Solicitors has grown to more than 100 staff handling hundreds of cases on behalf of clients locally and across the UK.

Ian Carruthers, formerly a partner at Rex Makin and Co, has joined the firm to lead a new business services department.

Together with Armstrongs’ director Alan Wharton, they will offer a range of commercial services.

Ian brings to the Old Hall Street headquartered firm almost 20 years’ experience acting for clients in professional negligence and defamation matters.

He also has vast experience of disputes involving property and wills and estates.

Alan oversees a number of other business services including commercial conveyancing and acquisition and sale of businesses.

The firm also boasts a private services department providing many of the commercial services but for individuals.

In addition, it has a reputation for helping clients who may be victims of unfair credit agreements.

The third department at Armstrongs is personal injury. The firm’s 70-strong PI team has helped clients win compensation of more than £35million during the past two years.

The team’s work ranges from road traffic and motorcycle accidents to workplace accidents and catastrophic accidents.

Ian Carruthers said: “Armstrongs has grown rapidly during the past two years attracting some fantastic local legal talent.

“We want to offer something fresh and dynamic in the North West legal market place.

“Unlike other firms we do not claim to offer everything. Instead we concentrate on areas in which we have experience and a proven track record.”

Ms Baynes alleged that she was maintained by Ms Watson and as such was entitled to reasonable financial provision from her estate. She made a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 seeking over £800,000 from Ms Watson’s estate after she was left only £2,500 in her will.

The High Court judge found that Ms Baynes had obtained several loans from Ms Watson in the final years of her life, and that she had therefore exploited her godmother, and her conduct should not be rewarded.

Ms Baynes appealed to the Court of Appeal, where Sir Andrew Morritt held that her conduct was not the only reason for the High Court judge’s decision, but that his conclusion was properly made taking into account her conduct and all the factors as required by the Act. The appeal was dismissed.

The firm’s website aims to provide potential clients with an eye-catching guide to services offered by the 100-strong team of solicitors and support staff.

The site is easy to navigate taking visitors to one of three departments – business services, private services and personal injury.

On every section there are email forms for people to fill in providing basic details about their case or claim.

The system ensures that your enquiry will be allocated swiftly to the right lawyer for your needs.

Over the coming weeks case studies detailing the work carried out by the Armstrongs team together with the latest news stories will be added to the site.

The website has been designed by Chester-based Clicky Media.

The company claimed interest on those sums which were not in dispute.

The late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act allows companies to charge 8% over the Bank of England base rate on commercial debts that are paid late.

Defra argued that this situation only arose when a correct invoice had been submitted. As part of that invoice was in dispute, it was not a correct invoice and therefore interest was not payable.

The case went to the Court of Appeal which held that Defra should only hold back sums that were reasonably in doubt.

Interest was therefore due on any undisputed part of the payment. The fact that part of the invoice was in dispute did not mean that the obligation to pay had not yet arisen.

For advice on commercial debts contact Ian Carruthers at Armstrongs Solicitors.

The purpose of this Government reform is to ensure that unscrupulous landlords do not exploit tenants.

Anyone proposing to let a residential property will have to pay a £50 fee to register and will have to comply with certain standards which have yet to be announced.

Failure by the registered landlord to comply with prescribed standards to repairs or who intimidate or harass tenants will be struck off the register.

Alan Wharton, of Armstrongs Solicitors, said: “My concern is that this will be further red tape which will dampen further an already stagnant property market and lead to increased costs for our landlord clients.

“Any landlords wanting further advice on how this will affect them should not hesitate to give Armstrongs a call.”

Previously, sellers could market their property immediately as long as they had already instructed a pack to be produced.

A further change concerned the Property Information Questionnaire which now requires the seller to answer information on the risk of flooding, gas and electricity safety, service charge, parking arrangements and structural damage.

Alan Wharton, of Armstrongs Solicitors, said he hoped these new rules would not have too great an effect on demand.