Publications

Understanding how a policy of insurance works is key to understanding the obligations on both insured and insurer. In this article we highlight some frequently encountered coverage issues that arise with medical malpractice insurance policies

Proving consent is not rocket science, but evidencing consent can often be difficult. We are looking (again) at the issues around consent and reviewing causation even where consent advice is lacking.

Entrenched attitudes, lack of investment and a failure to intervene early are linked to the cost of dealing with malpractice claims. We look at some of the conversations that have or ought to take place to tackle this unaffordable problem.

In order for a Will to be validly created, the person making it (referred to as the “testator”) must know the contents of the Will and approve them. Any interested person may apply to the Court for the Will to be declared invalid if they think the testator did not have this requisite ‘knowledge and approval’.

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (commonly referred to as the “Inheritance Act” or “1975 Act”) enables certain categories of people to apply to the Court and make a claim against a deceased person’s estate, alleging that the deceased did not make reasonable financial provision for them.

Where a person promises something to another, but then fails to follow through on that promise, there can be circumstances where the Court will intervene to make good that promise. This is referred to as proprietary estoppel.

Where a person (referred to as ‘P’) has lost capacity, it may be that they have an attorney or deputy managing their financial affairs. Although these people have the power to deal with P’s money and make payments, e.g. to pay for their care, they do not have an extensive power to make gifts from P’s assets. However, if the attorney or deputy does feel that such gifts are appropriate, they may apply to the Court of Protection for permission to do so.

There are several requirements for a Will to be valid, one of which is that the person making it (known as the ‘testator’) had the mental capacity to do so.

In order for a Will to be valid, it must be duly executed in accordance with s9 of the Wills Act 1837. If these strict requirements are not met, the Will is not valid.

It is important that when a person (known as the ‘testator’) makes a Will, the Will reflects their actual intentions and wishes, and not something forced upon them by a third party. Pressure put on the testator in this way is referred to as ‘Undue Influence’.

The role of a trustee is very important as they are entrusted with managing assets which belong to others, the beneficiaries.

Where a person has lost capacity, the Court of Protection has power to create a Will on their behalf. This is called a ‘Statutory Will.’

Cryptoassets like Bitcoin and Ether have an image problem. They have developed something of a reputation for use by criminals in illegal trading, and untraceable hacking and theft.

How long are you prepared to wait for a delivery – how long is too long? What would your answer have been 10 years ago? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Businesses should continue to prepare for reforms of off-payroll working in the private sector, despite some election announcements.

If a donor offered your charity a cryptoasset, would you know what such an asset was…? In this article, Paul Knight sets out the latest developments in the world of cryptoassets, following the publication of a legal statement on their status by a UK government backed taskforce, and a policy paper from HMRC on their tax treatment.

We assess the implications of the Johnson deal for the continuing Brexit process. Definitive predictions for 2020 are not possible, but there are already some dates in the diary.

What happens to privileged papers once a company client ceases to exist? Does disclaimer by the Crown mean privilege is waived?

The liquidators had brought misfeasance proceedings against Mr Rich, the sole director of the company. Mr Rich had caused the company to acquire a number of vehicles and then supply these to associates of the company’s shadow director. The terms of supply were uncommercial and largely undocumented. The liquidators also sought interest.

The directors of 26 companies in the Thomas Cook Group presented winding up petitions to the court and asked that the notice requirements (service and advertisement) be dispensed with so that immediate winding up orders could be made.