Howard Smith acted on behalf of the appellant in this case. The claim was an appeal by way of a re-hearing under s.10 Party Wall etc Act 1996. Surveyors had made an award directing that the Adjoining Owner should carry out remedial works and recover the cost from the Building Owner.
In the attached article Dov Ohrenstein examines the recent decision in Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc  EWHC 391 (Comm) which highlights the fact that defendants should not be confident that, if a claim fails,
Radcliffe Chambers barrister, Henry Day, recently wrote an article exploring the issue of when a pension scheme administrator becomes liable to a scheme sanction charge under Section 239 of the Finance Act 2004 and discusses
Dov Ohrenstein comments on the outcome of the appeal on the Illot v Mitson case.
Nathan Wells, instructed by Beviss & Beckingsale (Honiton), acted for the successful Defendant in Pearson v Foster  EWHC 107 (Ch). The case gave rise to a number of unusual property law issues.
The Claimant was the registered owner of incorporeal fishing rights (a profit à prendre in gross) which affected, inter alia, certain waters in the Mill Leat serving the Defendant’s ancient Watermill. The Claimant also had the benefit of
In a recent 10 day probate action in the Chancery List at Central London CC, Mr Recorder Lawrence Cohen QC held that a will had been procured by the fraudulent calumny of the defendant, and that the claimant had not unduly
Katherine McQuail appeared for the Appellant in the Court of Appeal in the case of Workman v Forrester  EWCA Civ 73 in which judgment was handed down on 21 February 2017. The hearing of the appeal attracted
We are pleased to announce that Nicholas Macklam has been appointed to HM Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel to the Crown, effective from
We are pleased to announce that Clive Moys has been appointed as a senior reviewer to the Bar Council’s Pro Bono Unit with particular reference to
Read part two (and the final part) of the casenotes by Mark West on the recently reported decision of the Court of Appeal in Rabiu (reported on 16th December) concerning what happens when one co-purchaser signs the contract for sale and the other does not.