24th Nov 2021
CFAs and 1975 Act claims. Hirachand v Hirachand  EWCA Civ 1498. Richard Dew talks about the Court of Appeal decision that permits recovery of CFA uplifts in 1975 Act claims including the implications for both Claimants and Defendants.
10th Nov 2021
When Can the Bastards Grind You Down? Times Travel (UK) Ltd. v Pakistan International Airlines Corpn  3 W.L.R.727 and when will a threat to do something lawful will amount to duress in contract law. In this case, an airline used its monopoly power to compel an agent to agree to give up strong claims […]
20th Oct 2021
James Poole talks about Hughes v Pritchard  EWHC 1580 (Ch), a case which concerned testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and undue influence in the context of wills, as well as a claim in proprietary estoppel, and where the judge found that the testator lacked capacity to make a will, despite expert evidence that he […]
6th Oct 2021
This podcast explores the recent decision of Boyle v Burke  1 BCLC 524 (in which Jeremy Callman appeared for the successful Defendants) which tackled questions of what dissolution of an 1890 Act partnership means and what brings about a dissolution. The Judge looked at the differences between ‘general dissolution’ and ‘technical dissolution’, how the […]
29th Sep 2021
Adam Stewart-Wallace discusses the recent case of Hudman v Morris  EWHC 1400 (Ch) in which an executor was removed for irrational and hostile conduct. One of the executors had been unreasonable in his conduct regarding relatively minor issues regarding the estate, including the reimbursement of approximately £2,000 to one of the beneficiaries. This had […]
22nd Sep 2021
Sam Laughton discusses the latest authority on the interface between the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel and the statutory requirement that agreements for the sale of land must be in signed writing. In Howe v Gossop, Snowden J considered the question of whether a proprietary estoppel asserted in defence of a claim of possession of […]
16th Sep 2021
James MacDougald discusses the recent judgment in Womble Bond Dickinson (Trust Corporation) Ltd v. Glenn  EWH4 624 (Ch), a decision about the statutory power of advancement and its application to Hancock v. Watson trusts.
The information and any commentary on the law contained in these podcasts are provided free of charge for information purposes only and do not represent legal or financial advice, and are not intended to be relied upon as such.
Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date as at the date it is written, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by Ten Old Square, any of the members of Ten Old Square, its committees or staff. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal or financial advice to any person on a specific case or matter, does not take into account individual circumstances, and may not reflect recent changes in the law.
Individuals are strongly advised to obtain specific personal advice from a lawyer about any case or matter they may have and not to rely on the information or comments on this site or on any of the materials made available.
Statements of fact and opinions expressed therein are those of the speaker(s) /author(s) individually and, unless expressly stated to the contrary, are not the collective opinion or position of Ten Old Square, its members, its committees or staff. These materials may be published in this or amended form in various media, including print and on the internet or in audio and/or video formats without further notice.