The Financial Ombudsman Service (the “Ombudsman”) is the independent dispute resolution service for financial services businesses and their customers. This includes private individual customers but also small businesses.

It is very rare for any dispute that finds its way to court to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties; inevitably one party will feel aggrieved that their argument failed to find merit with the judge, even if they were not, strictly speaking, at fault. This was the case with a dispute over an updated will made by an elderly man, Jack Leonard, in which he extended his list of beneficiaries to include his stepchildren as well as his biological children.

The ownership of a farm was at the centre of a dispute between three (of four) siblings after the death of their parents, Mr & Mrs Williams. The reasons for the dispute were depressingly familiar – the partnership agreement was at odds with their father’s will, with one brother claiming that assets gifted under the will were actually partnership assets and thus rightfully his. He also employed a backstop argument, that of proprietary estoppel, on the rather flimsy premise that his father had promised him the farm some forty odd years ago.

It is unfortunately not possible to prevent someone from contesting a will. However, both at the will preparation stage and in the early stages of being faced with the prospect of a dispute after death, there are various steps that can be taken to protect against it.

With no clear path yet determined for our exit from the European Union, many commercial tenants could have been forgiven for watching the dispute between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its landlord, Canary Wharf, with their fingers crossed.

In a recent dispute between European Professional Club Rugby, the governing body and organiser of two European premier club rugby union competitions, and sports media broadcaster, RDA Television LLP, the High Court allowed for the lawful termination of a contract due to COVID-19 on the grounds of force majeure.

A mother and son created a trading farm partnership which did not include the land. The agreement provided for dissolution of the partnership in the event of one of the partners becoming permanently incapacitated. In her last will, the mother left her share and interest in the partnership to her son but after her death, a dispute arose over whether her share and interest in the partnership was hers to give due to capacity issues.

The High Court has recently reminded everyone that parties’ conduct can alter their legal relationship even if the contract contains an “entire agreement” clause. The case arose from a payment dispute between a housing association and a private sector housing maintenance contractor and provides a warning about starting work without implementing functional systems, leading to a compromise that actually ends up binding the parties.

For many people, finding love starts with a dating app. More than 10% of UK adults that use the internet participate in online dating. Online dating is big business and brand strategy is a key aspect of obtaining a share of this lucrative market. Given the value of branding, brand protection is a vital component of protecting a business’ investment as well as its reputation and market share. These were all issues in the dispute that recently concluded in the Court of Appeal between a dominant player in the online dating market, Match Group LLC (Match) and Muzmatch, a disruptive innovator.

Adjudication and the insolvency process are not always easy companions, based as they are on very different legislation. This can be seen from the following scenario.