Josh Lewison advised the Representor in this matter, in which the Royal Court of Jersey has now given judgment. The central issue was the effect of a sole trustee exercising an express power to retire without appointing a successor but retaining the trust property.
In the last of three case notes on the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Regency Villas v. Diamond Resorts on the sporting and recreational facilities, Mark West considers some of the practical implications of the decision
We are delighted that Keith Rowley QC has been nominated for Silk of the Year at the Chambers UK Bar Awards 2017.
Clive Moys advised and settled the appellants’ representations in their successful s. 78 Householder planning appeal from Newport City Council’s refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for the enlargement of a window and the installation of a balcony at Broad Towers, Broadway, Caerleon, Newport. The Welsh Ministers appointed inspector Mr Richard E. Jenkins BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI to determine
Howard Smith appeared for the claimants dealing with rebutting prescription and whether consent or force needs positive proof.
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