Henderson & Jones has recently used an innovative assignment model to take control of a number of significant property assets for the benefit of bankruptcy estates. The property interests have now been secured and hundreds of thousands of pounds are due to be returned to the bankruptcy estates. See below for a brief explanation of how this was acheived.
Judgment has today been handed down in Re BetIndex Limited regarding the distribution to customers of funds held in a trust by BetIndex Limited t/a Football Index. Please see our summary of the key findings and a link to the full judgment.
Today's decision from the Paris Court of Appeal is a significant breakthrough for thousands of women who have suffered as a result of the PIP implants scandal, who have been fighting for justice for over a decade. This ruling against TUV Rheinland - the company which certified these defective implants - is an important step, but there is much more work to be done. In the UK alone, it is estimated that close to 50,000 women have suffered as a result of PIP implants. In the UK, Henderson & Jones is continuing to fight for compensation for the patients of Hospital Medical Group through High Court proceedings against the former directors of Hospital Medical Group, the Wilkes Partnership LLP and Barclays Bank, to recover monies that were deliberately put beyond the reach of thousands of PIP victims."
Wise words from Mahatma Gandhi, however it seems that, despite being a lawyer, Gandhi was not talking about service in the legal sense of the world. In this article, Sophie Samani explains how not to get lost when seeking to serve individuals where their current whereabouts are unknown or they reside outside of the jurisdiction.
A recent change to CPR 36 permits Claimants to make Part 36 Offers which allow for interest to accrue after the end of the "Relevant Period" for accepting the offer. In this article, Piers Elliott considers the change made and evaluates the potential tactical opportunities this creates for Claimants.
The Supreme Court today handed down a series of judgments providing clarification on the principles that will apply when determining coverage for COVID-19 related claims under certain commonly used policy terms in different insurers’ business interruption policies. In this article, Lauren Pender considers the Supreme Court's decision and what that is likely to mean in practice for insurers and insureds.
Piers Elliott and Matthew Abraham of South Square consider the duties of administrators when considering whether to pursue or assign litigation and the practical steps that can be taken to minimise the risk of claims being brought against administrators. Article published in the March 2020 edition of South Square Digest