James v James & ors [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch); [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch) (Costs)

Settlements: Getting Part 36 offers right

Sharan Sanghera provides up-to-date advice following a number of Part 36 judgments ‘Despite being a well-established regime, Part 36 continues to trip up litigators and mistakes can not only mean that consequences are not applied in your favour but can also lead to expensive satellite litigation.’ There are clear advantages to claimants and defendants in …

Continue reading "Settlements: Getting Part 36 offers right"

This post is only available to members.

Part 36: Proceed with caution

Maura McIntosh offers a useful update on dealing with CPR Part 36 ‘If you want to preserve any costs protection of an earlier offer, do not suggest in a subsequent offer that the costs consequences will run only from that offer.‘ This article considers a number of practical points arising from four recent decisions relating …

Continue reading "Part 36: Proceed with caution"

This post is only available to members.

Capacity: Importance of the golden rule

Kevin Kennedy and Andrew Walls report on the test in Banks v Goodfellow ‘This judgment provides very significant support that the Banks v Goodfellow test is the sole test for the court to apply when judging testamentary capacity post mortem.‘ The High Court in James v James [2018] has ruled that the test in Banks …

Continue reading "Capacity: Importance of the golden rule"

This post is only available to members.