The High Court refused to approve a proposed sale of shares by trustees that was opposed by the only beneficiaries absolutely entitled to them under the rule in Saunders v Vautier  EWHC Ch J82. Finding that the beneficiaries of two sub-funds were the only persons beneficially entitled to the shares allocated to the respective funds, by virtue of an earlier appropriation made by the trustees, the High Court held that the beneficiaries were entitled to direct the trustees how to deal with those shares.
The case illustrates that where the rule in Saunders v Vautier is held to apply, the trustees cannot act against the directions of the beneficiaries, despite, as in this case, the trustees' belief that the sale would be in the best interests of all the beneficiaries of the trust, including those who opposed it. (Hughes and others v Bourne and others  EWHC 2232 (Ch).)
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Simmons v Castle  EWCA Civ 1039 that, from 1 April 2013, general damages will increase by 10% in cases involving pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of personal injury, nuisance, defamation, and all other torts which cause suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals.
The changes announced mean that those being sued in the Civil Courts will no longer have to pay the ‘success fee’ of the lawyers should they lose their case. Under the current Conditional Fee arrangements lawyers are able to recover a ‘success fee’ and many of them are doubling their prices as it is the opposing party who is liable to pay them.
The recently passed Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has changed the way cases are funded, it is currently the case that costs are recovered from the other side, the changes propose that ‘winners’ have to pay the success fee out of their damages award.
If you have a Personal Injury claim you wish to pursue, please QualitySolicitors Large and Gibson, where our Litigation Partner Peter Dymock who has over 20 years experience will be happy to assist you.
The Coalitions plans to speed up the Courts system by opening Saturdays could come to a holt as lawyers across England refuse to sit at weekends. The idea behind Saturday and Sunday openings came after the London riots last year saw a sudden increase in demand on the Courts to deal with those involved.
Trials for these weekend openings are taking place across England, but lawyers are not keen on the idea as many firms believe this will leave them out of pocket.
QualitySolicitors Large and Gibson feel that Saturday openings will beneficial to our clients and therefore from 29th September 2012 we shall be opening from 10.00 -13.30 on Saturdays.
What will happen to your digital footprint when you die?
Bruce Willis has recently been in the news as he has allegedly discovered he can not pass his iTunes collection onto his children when he dies.
This is part of a much wider topic of discussion as to who actually owns our ‘digital footprint’ such as Facebook, Twitter, emails and iTunes.
In respect of iTunes music, many people don’t read all the terms and conditions before clicking agree, so they don’t realise that when they pay for new music and film downloads all they are actually doing is paying for the right to have that file saved on a computer without being sued!
Join us on Facebook and Twitter and share your opinions!
Lord Justice Goldring, the Senior Presiding Judge has warned Judge and Magistrates about disciplinary action that will arise should they continue to write about their jobs and cases on Twitter or personal blogs
Although blogging has not been prohibited, It has been made clear that blogs and Tweets by Judges and Magistrates must not identify themselves in any way as members of the judiciary.
This guidance applies to all holders of Judicial office in Courts and Tribunals. It has come into dispute amongst members of the Judiciary as more senior Judges are still permitted to give interviews and even publish books and articles.
Members of the Judiciary who have previously published such comments online have been asked to delete them.
This guidance is said to be made effective because if the Judge or Magistrate were ever identified in these anonymous comments it could damage public damage and their impartiality could be questioned.