header-logo header-logo

Will

16 October 2014
Issue: 7626 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC 51, [2014] All ER (D) 135 (Sep)

The proceedings concerned a dispute over the validity of the deceased’s will, which had, due to an oversight by a solicitor (the solicitor), been signed by his wife. The claimant was the beneficiary under the will, if it was valid. The defendants were the deceased’s children. Following an earlier judgment allowing the claimant’s appeal from a decision in the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, the Supreme Court considered the construction of conditional fee agreements and further held that the right order to make was that the solicitor’s insurers pay the costs of the proceedings of the claimant up to and including the Supreme Court and of the defendants up to and including the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Further orders were made. 

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll