Main menu


+44 (0)151 600 3000


+44 (0)161 836 8800


+44 (0)1772 823 921

Search form

Search form



Today the Supreme Court rejected a plea for relief from a Litigant in Person (LiP) who had failed to strictly adhere to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

By way of background, the case involved Mr Barton who sought to bring a claim for professional negligence against Wright Halsall, his previous solicitors, which was issued on 25 February 2013. The Claim Form would have been served by the Court upon the Defendant, however, pursuant to the exception in CPR 6.4(b) Mr Barton elected to serve it himself.

These new limits have been set by the recently published Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2018. The new limits apply where the event giving rise to compensation or payment occurs on or after 6 April 2018.

This means that where a dismissal or relevant event occurs before this date, the old limits will still apply, irrespective of the date on which compensation is awarded. 

With effect from 6 April 2018 the main changes will be:

Disputes regarding the scope and application of repairing obligations in leases frequently arise and, given the financial implications for the parties involved, are significant.

The recent decision in De Havailland Studios Ltd v Peries v Voysey [2017] UKUT 322 (LC) Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) provides a useful reference on the question of choice of whether to repair or replace and whose choice it is.

On 21 January 2018 the Government announced the creation of a new Office for Product Safety Standards (“OPSS”) which is tasked with “identifying consumer risks and managing response to large-scale product recalls and repairs”.

The announcement comes as part the Government’s response to the Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety. The report, published in July 2017, recommended the “need for a centralised technical and scientific resource capability to support decision making and co-ordination of activity of Local Authorities and the businesses they regulate”

Following on from our Private Equity predictions for 2017, our Private Equity and Venture Capital team reflect on activity over the previous 12 months and give their predictions for 2018:

The recent decision in Sackville UK Property Select II (GP) No 1 (1) Sackville UK Property Select II Nominee (1) Ltd (2) v Robertson Taylor Insurance Brokers Ltd (1) Integro Insurance Brokers Ltd (2) [2018] EWHC 122 (Ch) serves as a reminder of the preparation and attention to detail that must be taken when serving break notices.


The Court of Appeal made a decision in W Portsmouth & Co Ltd v Lowin [2017] EWCA Civ 2172 at the very end of last year which clarifies some tension between two costs provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules.

Part 36 deals with how costs are awarded when a Part 36 offer for settlement has been in play. CPR 36.17(4)(b) provides that if a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer then costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis.

The legendary Liverpool FC manager Bill Shankly once said “If you are first you are first.  If you are second, you are nothing”, and at the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games the competitors strive for a Gold medal.  A recent case demonstrates that creditors enforcing a debt should also seek to be first across the finish line.

Stotts Tours, are the first UK employer to face prosecution for non-compliance with the auto-enrolment legislation.

The Pensions Regulator, the regulator of work-place pension schemes in the UK, decided to bring charges against Stotts and its managing director after they admitted to deliberately avoiding setting up a work-place pension for 36 of its workers eligible under the auto-enrolment scheme. 

The principle of the Equality Act 2010, is that men and women should get equal pay for equal work.  Therefore employees (including apprentices and those working from home) are eligible to claim, whether they work full time, part time, casual or on temporary contracts, regardless of their length of service.