In Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd, the parties both argued they were entitled to property sale proceeds, but who took priority? Hughmans acted for a Mr Davidson in a claim brought against him by Central Stream Services Ltd.

Following the Judgment of Ilott v Mitson & Others handed down on 15 March 2017, this has given rise to a number of legal questions for the profession and has caused those who may have a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, to ask “what does this mean for me?”

This year has seen a rarely reported case of fraudulent calumny (or, "the making of false and defamatory statements about someone to damage their reputation; slander" to you and me!).

Following the recent media excitement over the case Ilott v Mitson there has been a further interesting case under the Inheritance Act.

In 2017 we reported on a finding at the First Tier Tribunal that the Root 2 Alchemy Tax Scheme (the Scheme) had been found to be a disclosable tax avoidance scheme under the DOTAS rules (the DOTAS Decision).

This case involved a contract in which a shipbuilding company agreed to build and sell one vessel to each of six buyers. The buyers agreed to make pre-delivery payments for the vessel in return for refund guarantees from the shipbuilder’s bank.

In Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green, the High Court shows it’s willingness to depart from the normal costs rules where a mortgage lender had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol, and how this can prove to be an expensive mistake for a claimant.

Loring –v- Woodland Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1314

Solicitors acting for a structured credit salesman who had been working for JP Morgan failed to lodge a court document in time.

The Shorter Trials Scheme (STS) aims to limit the time spent when businesses are locked in litigation.