header-logo header-logo

10 March 2021
Issue: 7924 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 12 March 2021

Civil procedure

A v XY Ltd [2021] CSOH 21, 2021 Scot (D) 28/2

In an action in which the pursuer, who claimed that she was raped when she was aged 13 by a male teacher in charge of a school camping trip, sought £1.5m compensation from the defender, which owned and managed the school, in which the defender contended as a preliminary point that the court, applying s 17D(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, should refuse to allow the action to proceed because it would suffer substantial prejudice and that prejudice outweighed the pursuer’s interest, the court held that the defender had established that it would be substantially prejudiced if the action proceeded, however the pursuer’s interest outweighed the substantial prejudice to the defender; in the balancing exercise the scales tipped decisively in favour of the pursuer and accordingly the court allowed the action to continue.


Divorce

Ratcliffe v Ratcliffe [2021] EWCA Civ 247, [2021] All ER (D) 06 (Mar)

In allowing the appellant husband’s appeal,

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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