We are pleased to announce that Mark Fell has been appointed to HM Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown
In Re FW Mason & Sons Ltd (in Liquidation)  EWHC 1512, the company’s current liquidators were claiming against its former liquidators, (one of whom was represented by Dov Ohrenstein) for alleged misfeasance and were determined to try to prove dishonesty. The allegations were serious and while Mr Justice Morgan accepted that there might be a public interest in discovering
The more glamorous side of Dov Ohrenstein’s practice has gained the attention of journalists at the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Both papers have recently published articles giving details of the dispute between Anastasia Alexander and Alfred Munkenbeck about
Mark Mullen appeared for HM Attorney General before the Chancellor of the High Court in The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation v HM Attorney General and others  EWHC 1379 (Ch) in which the claimant (‘CIFF’), a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity, sought approval of the making of a grant of $360 million to a new charity established by one of its trustees.
One aspect of the decision of Charles J in ADS v DSM  EWCOP 8 is causing Court of Protection practitioners a headache as explored below by Justin Holmes.
Charles J criticised the parties, and a Court of Protection visitor, for interviewing P at the house of her son, where she lived, whilst her son or members of his immediate family were elsewhere in the property. He said that in view of the allegations of undue influence in the case she should have been taken to a “neutral venue” by somebody independent of the family and interviewed there.
Practitioners are concerned, however
We are pleased to announce that Mark West contributed the section on Mines, Minerals and Quarries in the
In this continuation of his casenotes regarding the recent judgment in Regency Villas v. Diamond Resorts by the Court of Appeal, Mark West considers (i) whether the easements could exist given that there was no obligation on the defendants to maintain the facilities (ii) whether the judge was right to allow an easement over future
The High Court has handed down judgment in the British Airways pension scheme litigation, dismissing BA’s claim.
The dispute arose following the Government’s announcement in 2010 that it intended to use CPI instead of RPI for increasing public sector pensions. Due to its public sector origins, this new practice applied to the Airways Pension Scheme.
Mark Mullen appeared for HM Revenue and Customs on its application for summary judgment in a claim brought by Emma Hope, a well-known shoe designer. By her claim, Ms Hope sought to set aside concluded proceedings, alleging fraud on the part of HMRC in those proceedings, and sought damages for misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and breach of duty at common law.
Henry Day examines the decision in Thales UK Ltd v Thales Pension Trustees Ltd  EWHC 666 (Ch) and considers what assistance it can offer practitioners when construing a pension scheme’s indexation and revaluation provisions.