Author:

  • High Court granted permission to bring a claim under the Inheritance Act despite it being issued some 25 years after the deadline

    High Court granted permission to bring a claim under the Inheritance Act despite it being issued some 25 years after the deadline

    In Bhusate v Patel & Ors  the High Court granted permission to the claimant bring a claim under the Inheritance Act despite it being issued some 25 years after the deadline for doing so, after the Claimant demonstrated ‘compelling reasons’ why it was right and proper that the court should exercise its discretion in her favour.

    The Inheritance Act limits parties to six months for bringing claims.

    The judgment also disputes the reasoning of a High Court judge who considered another out-of-time application under section 4 of the Act last month in the case of Cowan v Foreman. In Cowan the Judge said ‘robust’ application of the power to extend deadline was consistent with the overriding objective and Civil Procedure Rules requiring compliance and for the court to consider the time and resources allocated to late applications.

    Chief Master Marsh said that he had read the Cowan judgment and he did not consider it was right to regard the overriding objective when considering the exercise of discretion under section 4.

    In Bhusate, the court ruled the claimant, whose husband died intestate in 1990, was ‘effectively powerless’ to do anything sooner in the absence of agreement or engagement by her stepchildren.

    The step-children obstructed the sale of her residential property then ‘did nothing’ to break the impasse for a further 23 years and were hostile.

    Chief Master Marsh noted that if the application was not granted, the claimant would be left with no remedy at all and no benefit from her husband’s estate, and would effectively be left homeless. He acknowledged the long period of delay for making a claim to the estate, but it was not correct to say this made it inevitable that the application should be dismissed.

    If you are seeking provision from an estate or are looking to defend a claim our Probate Partner Rachel Damianou and Litigation Solicitor Shalish Mehta provide professional and sympathetic assistance. Call Rachel or Shalish on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email rld@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    For more information on disputed wills, click here.

    If you want to find out more about civil litigation, click here.

  • Janelle Monáe accused by fashion designer of wearing ‘copied’ outfit

    Nange Magro, a London-based fashion designer has said her costume designs have been plagiarised for Janelle Monáe’s recent Grammy awards performance.

    Magro posted images on Instagram comparing designs she made in 2015 with those worn by Monáe on stage at the Grammys. She said “ I am flattered to be an inspiration for this amazing artist, but not flattered that my original design has been blatantly imitated.”

    In 2016, Moschino designer Jeremy Scott made an undisclosed settlement with graffiti artist Joseph Tierney, after Tierney accused him of plagiarising one of his artworks for a dress worn by Katy Perry to the 2015 Met Gala.

    In March 2018, Vivienne Westwood apologised to fellow fashion designers Louise Gray and Rottingdean Bazaar after she imitated one of their designs, saying: “We are sorry. The use of your graphics on our T-shirt was only ever meant to be a celebration of your work.”

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation

    Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation

    Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation in a landmark victory in the Supreme Court against the UK government after fighting what was known as the “same roof” rule.

    The same roof rule meant victims of crime were ineligible for pay-outs if they lived under the same roof as the perpetrator.

    When Mrs Allan was five years old, her mother tried to strangle her. Her mother was charged with attempted murder and jailed in 1976. Mrs Allan was then brought up in foster care.

    As an adult, Mrs Allan was told she could not claim the criminal injuries compensation other victims were entitled to because the crime had happened before 1979.

    Until then, any victim of violence by a member of their own family could not be compensated if they had been living under the same roof.

    The rule was intended to ensure that perpetrators would not benefit from the compensation paid to the victims they lived with.

    This was changed in 1979 so that child victims of domestic crimes could claim compensation. However, the change was not applied retrospectively.

    Mrs Allan believed her human rights were being breached because she was being deprived of support under an “unfair” rule that dismissed entitlement to compensation for injuries caused by someone within the same family.

    The courts have now recognised that it is discriminatory to prevent people from claiming compensation because of the same roof rule which could allow the door to be open to hundreds of others across the country.

    If you have been the victim of a crime of violence, for example if someone has assaulted you, then you can claim. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our Personal Injury department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Injury Solicitors
    Click here to find out more about Criminal Injuries

  • Ex-wife and children of late tech tycoon win £2m share of his fortune

    The first wife and two young sons of a late IT tycoon have won a £2million share of his fortune to help them buy a ‘massive, amazing house’ he promised them.

    Louisa Simonetta, was given the sum after a lengthy legal battle in the High Court with her ex-husband’s second wife Ruby Geetha Lovell-Tomon, over his £5.2million estate. Matt Tomon died suddenly at the age of 38 three years ago, but had failed to make a will for how to share his wealth.

    She argued she wanted the cash to pay for a house in her native Australia for the family, and also fund the private education of their young sons Alexander and Julian, in accordance with Mr Tomon’s wishes.

    Shortly before his death, Mr Tomon sold his IT firm for £5.2million and deposited the funds into his new wife’s account.

    Mrs Lovell-Tomon claimed the money was an ‘outright gift’ left to her and that her husband’s US nationality and plans to move back home or to the Bahamas meant he did not have to make ‘reasonable provision’ for his ex-wife.

    Mr Justice Williams found in favour of Ms Simonetta and said Mr Tomon had clearly promised a home for her and his sons and said the parties had negotiated and agreed to a settlement of the claim, which will see the boys receive £950,000 between them from their father’s estate, with their mother awarded cash and property worth almost £1 million.

    The sums to be received were a ‘reasonable and sensible compromise’ of the case, Mr Justice Williams said.

    He added: ‘Were this action to continue, it has sadly all the hallmarks of a case that would be contested up hill and down dale; something which no doubt would have caused Matt considerable sadness.

    ‘Such is one of the consequences of failing to make provision in the form of a will or otherwise for your family.’But of course, for Louisa and the boys, the reality would be months extending into years no doubt, of litigation.

    If you are seeking provision from an estate or are looking to defend a claim our Probate Partner Rachel Damianou and Litigation Solicitor Shalish Mehta provide professional and sympathetic assistance. Call Rachel or Shalish on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email rld@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Cadbury’s loses legal fight over use of the colour purple

    In December 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal filed by Cadbury’s relating to one of their colour purple trade mark registrations.

    Cadbury and Nestlé were previously involved in a trade mark dispute after the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) rejected Nestlé’s opposition to Cadbury’s trade mark application to register the colour purple for chocolate. This decision was upheld by the High Court but ultimately overturned by the Court of Appeal.

    The case was triggered by Nestle, which claimed the trademark could threaten its hazelnut and caramel chocolate called the Purple One and the Quality Street box decoration.

    Cadbury owner Mondelez International said: ‘We have not appealed the decision but will continue to protect what we believe is a distinctive trademark.’

    The company claimed a legal victory over Nestle two years ago by stopping Nestle from getting a trademark for the four-finger shape of the KitKat.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • The Law Society has recently provided some further guidance in cases where a Will is disputed.

    The Law Society has recently provided some further guidance in cases where a Will is disputed.

    If you’re leaving a will or a relative of yours has left a will, it could be open to being contested or challenged. The situations in which someone can challenge a will aren’t always straightforward.

    In England there are only limited circumstances when you can challenge a will. These are:

    – Because the will is invalid. For example, a person whose will it is was unduly influenced or coerced or because they did not have the mental ability to know what they were doing or because the will wasn’t signed or witnessed correctly.

    – Because a family member wasn’t provided for. Spouses, civil partners, children and dependants can make a claim if they haven’t been left anything/enough in the will.

    Have you been affected by any of the above? Our Probate Partner Rachel Damianou and Litigation Solicitor Shalish Mehta provide professional and sympathetic assistance. Call Rachel or Shalish on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email rld@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Louboutin wins trademark battle against VanHaren

    Dutch shoe retailer Van Haren has lost its lengthy legal dispute against luxury shoe group Louboutin over the trademark of its red-soled shoes.

    Judges in the District Court of the Hague ruled on Wednesday that Van Haren had infringed Louboutin’s trade mark in its red soles.

    The European Court has decided the Dutch shoe chain Van Haren is no longer allowed to manufacture or sell shoes with red soles as Louboutin holds exclusive rights.

    The legal battle started in 2012, when Christian Louboutin began proceedings against Van Haren, after it included high-heeled shoes with red soles.

    Christian Louboutin had registered trademarks in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the colour red being applied to the sole of a shoe, covering “footwear” in 2010 and “high-heeled shoes” in 2013.

    The case was first settled by the court of The Hague in April 2013, where it agreed with Louboutin and ordered Van Haren to stop selling the shoes.

    Van Haren appealed against that judgement and the matter was presented to the European Court, which also decided that the red sole is covered by Louboutin’s exclusive right.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal by a woman who lost a libel case over posts she made about her ex-husband on Facebook.

    The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal by a woman who lost a libel case over posts she made about her ex-husband on Facebook.

    Nicola Stocker said her husband Ronald Stocker had tried to strangle her, during an online exchange with his new partner Deborah Bligh in December 2012.

    Mr Stocker won a libel ruling against his ex-wife at London’s High Court in 2016 after Mr Justice Mitting said the comments wrongly painted him as a “dangerous and thoroughly disreputable man”. He also said a comment on Facebook was the same as a comment posted on an office noticeboard and Mrs Stocker had no right to assume it was private.

    The judge found Mr Stocker did “in temper” attempt to silence his ex-wife, but was not satisfied he had threatened to kill her and therefore her comments had a defamatory meaning.

    The judge said the libel was “not trivial”, and assessed the appropriate compensation at £5,000 – though Mr Stocker did not want any money.

    Mrs Stocker challenged the judge’s ruling at the Court of Appeal. However, her case was rejected by three senior judges in February 2018.

    She is now bringing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court, where her case was being heard by a panel of five justices.

    Her lawyers will argue the High Court judge was wrong to find Mrs Stocker’s comments bore the meaning that her ex-husband had tried to kill her.

    Dismissing her appeal in at the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Sharp said the judge in the High Court “made no error” in reaching his decision. She said: “she was the originator of the libel, she was aware that the particular Facebook platform concerned was a semi-public one and she deliberately posted on that platform without thinking about who else might see what she posted.”

  • Supermac’s wins landmark battle against McDonald’s

    Supermac’s wins landmark battle against McDonald’s

    On Tuesday, Supermac’s, a fast-food chain in Ireland won a landmark legal battle against McDonald’s over the use of trademarks. Supermac’s Managing Director, Pat McDonagh earned his nickname Supermac in the 1960s due to his performances in Gaelic football.

    Supermac’s persuaded the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to cancel McDonald’s use of the “Big Mac” trademark.

    The EUIPO, which is based in Alicante, Spain, ruled that McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in 1996, as a burger or restaurant name.

    The trademark had prevented Supermac’s ambition of expanding outside of Ireland because McDonald’s had argued that similarity between Big Mac and Supermac would confuse customers.

    The ruling prevents bigger companies from hoarding trademarks with no intention of using them.

    McDonald’s have yet to state whether they intend to appeal.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or