Professional risk - December 2011

Welcome to the Professional Risk newsletter, with considered analysis of issues and cases affecting the whole professional indemnity market.

We hope that you find this update of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me, our contributors or your usual Weightmans contact if you have any issues you wish to discuss.

Dominic Dennis-Browne, editor.
020 7822 1934

Articles

Differing judges and the consistent approach – Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd and others

This article considers the recent case of Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd and DAB Pumps SpA, which raises issues of expert evidence and third party claims. We consider the impact of the decision in the context of construction claims.

The increasing wave of claims brought by litigants in person means challenging times lie ahead

This article considers the trend of an increase in the number of claims being brought by litigants in person, the challenges faced and tips on how to handle these claims.

Lenders’ claims: Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

This article considers the increase in claims brought against surveyors and arguments open to insurers to reduce the level of damages paid.

Measuring damages in defective premises claims

This article considers the process of measuring damages in defective premises claims. This has historically been a complex issue and the recent case of Harrison and others v Shepherd Homes Ltd and others sheds some further light on this difficult point.

Hot-Tubbing – All froth & bubbles or being taken to the cleaners?

This article considers "Hot-Tubbing" of experts, which is becoming a frequent feature of trials in the Technology and Construction Court. We review the merits and disadvantages of this procedure.

Bribery Act 2010 – Are solicitors taking it seriously?

This article considers the Bribery Act 2010 and the impact the Act will have on how solicitors run their business in the UK and abroad.

A variation of this article has been submitted for publication to the Law Society Legal Compliance Bulletin for the November 2011 edition.

The end of an error?

This article considers the important recent amendments to the CPR rules concerning Part 36 offers.

Page v Hewetts & Fuller: Three-pronged attempt to overcome limitation defence fails

This article considers the important recent decision in Page v Hewetts & Fuller and the limitation arguments which can be raised by a defendant to defeat a claim on limitation grounds.

Capita Alternative Fund Services Guernsey Limited & Matrix-Securities Limited v Drivers Jonas (a Firm)

This article considers a recently reported decision on surveyor's negligence and the important issue of reliance in respect of the surveyor's advice.

Changes to the Construction Act – In force from 1 October 2011

This article considers the recent changes made to the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 by The Local Democracy Development and Construction Act 2009. These changes have significant impact on construction contracts and the construction adjudication procedure.

Outcomes focused regulation – An opportunity to improve risk management

This article considers the new Code of Conduct for solicitors and the challenges firms face in how they regulate and manage the risk they face.

Costs - Proportionality, Costs of abandoned issues, Cost of funding, Success fees & ATE

This article considers the case of Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor, which deals with various costs issues including proportionality of costs and the cost of funding in respect of preparing and advising on CFAs.

Life after death bonds

This article considers issues arising from the decision of the FSCS to pursue subrogated claims against IFAs for recovery of compensation paid to investors following the collapse of Keydata Investment Services Ltd.

This update does not attempt to provide a full analysis of those matters with which it deals and is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice.

Weightmans LLP accepts no responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance on the information in this update. The copyright for this update is owned by Weightmans LLP 2011.