Healys Partners Ranked In Chambers & Partners 2020
We are pleased to announce that 3 Healys partners have been individually ranked in the 2020 edition of legal directory Chambers & Partners. Continue reading →
We are pleased to announce that 3 Healys partners have been individually ranked in the 2020 edition of legal directory Chambers & Partners. Continue reading →
If you believe you are a victim of professional negligence, you should seek legal advice right away or risk losing your chance of obtaining justice. An insurer found that out to its cost after a delay in launching proceedings resulted in it having to bear the full financial burden of remedying a tower block’s defective cladding. Continue reading →
Healys LLP has again been recognised as a leading firm in the latest edition of the Legal 500. This year, 4 practice areas and 3 individual lawyers have been recommended.
When a dispute broke out over an insurance claim, the value of line-by-line analysis of the policy terms and the obligations to make disclosures were made starkly evident. The dispute arose after the owner of a property rented it out to another firm for waste recycling. Insurance cover was placed with two insurers by a broker on behalf of the tenant and the property owner to cover various risks, including to the plant and machinery. Continue reading →
Healys is proud to announce that, for the third year running, the legal directory Chambers & Partners has ranked Head of Professional Negligence, Robert Johnson, as a “Leader in the Field”. Newly appointed Corporate partner, Karen Lord, has also been recommended. Continue reading →
People take professional advice all the time, and rely on it. A professional who gives advice will normally not only have the appropriate qualifications but will also be covered by the firm’s professional indemnity policy, so that if their advice turns out to be negligent, the client can be compensated. Continue reading →
In the case of Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) at the Court of Appeal, the Law Society is intervening in defence of professional privilege. Continue reading →
A case highlighted back in June was the court of Appeal decision in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trusts [2017] EWCA Civ 792 which confirmed the principles established in the Merrix case regarding the inter-relationship between budgets and detailed assessment. In short… Continue reading →
A recent report by the IOD and BLM law states that negligence claims against property solicitors are continuing to rise, as the issue of leasehold ground rents comes into public view. These claims have arisen from purchasers of leasehold properties who have sought to recover compensation for ground rent charges, which they claim that they were never informed of. Continue reading →
Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been a plethora of authorities in relation to costs and recoveries and that continues apace.
In Jordan v MGM Limited [2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch), the claimant was (“rightly”) penalised by the very late acceptance of a Part 36 offer. The offer had been made over two and half years previously and it was accepted just before trial. As a consequence, the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs (and on an indemnity basis) from the date of expiry of the relevant period under the Part 36 offer.
In a similar case of Briggs v CEF Holdings Ltd (2017) CA (Civ Div), the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal in respect of the first instance district judge’s order on costs. The Court of Appeal overturned the district judge’s ruling and found for the defendant on costs on the Part 36 issue.
There has been much focus on ensuring that my team manage Part 36 offers properly in order to ensure that they know which ones are open and hence which ones might (depending on developments within the case) need to be withdrawn or increased/decreased. Of course, the other side of the coin is ensuring that you consider a Part 36 offer that is made by the other party carefully (and then advising the client accordingly) in order to determine whether it should be accepted or, if not, ensuring that the client is fully aware of the possible consequences. I can easily see how failure to deal with such matters properly could lead to a claim against the solicitor.
For more information on this topic or any service we offer please contact Robert Johnson on 020 7822 4000 or email robert.johnson@healys.old-website.shout-loud.co.uk.