header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 23 September 2016

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Seeing off malicious claims; Triumph for QBD Masters; & Court of Appeal: keep out

Brand new threatener

“On the instructions I have received, your claim against my client now proceeding in the County Court at Macclesfield lacks reasonable and probable cause and you have no bona fide reason for making it. My instructions are that the claim has already caused him injury to his health and financial loss and the longer the claim is allowed to continue, the greater that loss will be. I have advised my client that in commencing and persisting with the claim you have committed the tort of malicious prosecution and in that connection I draw your attention to the majority judgments of the Supreme Court in Willers v Joyce and another [2016] EWHC 1315, [2016] All ER (D) 97 (Jul).

I hereby give you notice that unless within seven days of the date of receipt of this letter and in accordance with r 38.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, you discontinue the claim and serve me on behalf of my client

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll