header-logo header-logo

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

Will

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll