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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll