The Supreme Court has, in June 2020, given judgment on a landmark case which sets out the current state of the law relating to the availability or otherwise of adjudication as a means of dispute resolution when one of the parties is in insolvent liquidation.

In English law, to make a valid will, a testator must have their signature to it witnessed by two adult independent witnesses. The current social distancing measures together with self-isolation to protect the particularly elderly and vulnerable, therefore present a challenge for private client practitioners: how do we ensure that wills are valid when we can’t stand within 2 metres of one another?

Following the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) the law relating to informed consent has been redefined. Before the change, it was down to the clinician to decide how much information to give a patient (providing that decision would be considered reasonable by a responsible body of medical opinion, the Bolam test). Post Montgomery, clinicians must ensure that their patient is fully informed about any potential risks to the proposed treatment, and of any alternative treatment options.

A recent case about invasive Japanese knotweed has changed the way in which alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is handled. Following the case, relevant parts of the law that previous only allowed courts to encourage ADR have been formally amended, and from October 2024 judges will be able to stop court proceedings and compel parties to engage in ADR.

Considerable column inches have already been devoted to the introduction of The Renters (Reform) Bill with many commentators lamenting that it will hasten the demise of the private landlord. Hailed as the biggest overhaul of residential tenancy law for over thirty years, it seeks to address perceived inequalities in the landlord/tenant relationship.

The long-awaited decision in this case was handed down by the Supreme Court on 15 March 2017. Unfortunately, it does not provide any of us with the guidance that we had so hoped for and indeed the Supreme Court identify in their judgement “the unsatisfactory state of the present law”. So has this case really been the landmark that it was heralded to be?

In the realm of family law, couples often find themselves contemplating the necessity of pre and post-nuptial agreements. While such legal documents may not be the most romantic aspect of a relationship, they play a crucial role in providing clarity, security, and peace of mind for both parties involved. This article will explore the significance of these agreements and how they can safeguard interests in the event of a marital breakdown.

It is notoriously difficult for claimants to succeed in a claim of constructive dismissal because the claimant must first demonstrate that their employer’s action (the respondent) amounted to a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.

Under insolvency legislation, there is a presumption that the interests of a bankrupt’s creditors (including the interests of the bankrupt's spouse/civil partner and family) take precedence over all other factors unless the circumstances are exceptional. But unhelpfully, within the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) - specifically section 335A(3) - there is no definition of what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ so courts have to rely on case law to guide them.

Wright Hassall announced as the new exclusive legal sponsor of the Equestrian Employers Association (EEA).