header-logo header-logo

07 October 2016
Issue: 7717 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

Guney v Kingsley Napley and another [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB), [2016] All ER (D) 07 (Oct)

The court, on the claimant’s professional liability claim against the defendant firm of solicitors, held that the claimant’s application to amend would be refused, as it was misconceived and had been brought too late. The defendant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out in respect of five parts of the claim would be granted, as three of the five grounds had no real prospect of success and there was no reasonable ground for the claimant to have brought the other two parts.

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll