header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 June 2009 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7374 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 19 June 2009

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

CFO rates hit rock bottom; Ecstasy for tolerated trespassers; Master loses Rolls; Reduced assets

 

 

 

Civil way

CFO rates hit rock bottom; Ecstasy for tolerated trespassers; Master loses Rolls; Reduced assets

Not so special

Court Funds Office’s special account (mainly for investment of funds for children and others who lack capacity) and basic account (mainly for funds held on deposit during proceedings) saw their rates halved to 3% and 2% respectively on 1 February 2009. The reduced rates were halved again on 1 June 2009. For the innumerate, this means the special rate is down to 1.5% and the basic rate to 1%. Litigation friends may have a go at seeking to persuade the court to allow them to invest themselves. The special account change is of more than academic importance to personal injury pleaders as the rate is utilised in calculating interest on special losses in personal injury claims.

TA TA to the TT

The tolerated trespasser (TT) (a status described as “conceptually peculiar, even oxymoronic” by

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
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll