header-logo header-logo

23 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 23 September 2016

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll