We recently acted for clients whose young kitten suffered significant injury following what should have been a routine spay procedure. During surgery, an error was made which caused damage to the kitten’s kidneys. As a result, the kitten required urgent treatment at a specialist referral centre and continues to need ongoing veterinary care. The financial and emotional impact on the owners has been considerable.
Despite the seriousness of the injury, the treating vet denied liability. We undertook a detailed review of veterinary literature and identified a basis to cast real doubt on the vet’s position. This allowed us to challenge the denial of liability in a structured and evidence‑based way.
The vet also argued that the claim was disproportionate because, in law, pets are treated as chattels and their “replacement value” is modest. We rebutted this firmly. Our clients had acted throughout on the advice of veterinary specialists and in the best interests of their animal. The costs incurred were neither extravagant nor avoidable — they were the natural and reasonable consequence of the injury caused.
Through negotiation, we achieved an acceptable compromise that resulted in a substantial recovery for our clients. Importantly, we were able to resolve the matter without the need to issue court proceedings or to instruct an independent expert on liability, which is often required in veterinary negligence claims and can add significant cost and delay. This was an excellent outcome for the owners and ensured the financial burden of ongoing treatment was eased.
If you have concerns about treatment your pet has received or wish to discuss a potential claim against a veterinary professional, please contact us. We are always happy to help.
Are you having issues with the Student Loan Company? Has Student Finance England rejected your application for student finance? Do you know you have the right to appeal their decision?
If you have found yourself in such a situation, then it is important to know that you have the right to appeal if you do not agree with the decision.
‘The Student Finance England, Assessing Eligibility Guidance’ for caseworker’s clearly stipulate that caseworkers should not apply a general rule of thumb to all applications, and that each application should be considered on its individual merits. However, as with most organisations, rules are not interpreted correctly, and a general blanket decision is applied which can lead to a rejection of an application.
Often, we see applications for student finance being refused on the basis that the applicant has “not satisfied the relevant three-year residence period in the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland prior to the first day of the first academic year of the course”.
Such a situation recently occurred to a student after the course had already started. The student instructed Summerfield Browne Solicitors in his appeal against the SFE.
Background
The applicant had emigrated to the UK at a very young age and had attended primary school and secondary school in the city that was now his hometown. The applicant’s father had obtained employment outside of the UK when the applicant was 15 years old, and because of this new role, the applicant, being a minor, had no choice but to move abroad to live as a family unit.
Although the father had accepted employment outside of the UK, the role was temporary with no intention of becoming permanent. Furthermore, the Country that the family moved too had legislation in place that differed to the UK – in that, a temporary employment meant just that – temporary and no amount of ‘time worked’ would qualify as a permanent role.
As the intention to undertake that role away from the UK was always temporary, the father ensured the running of their UK family home continued. Mortgage payments were kept up to date, as was council tax payments, utility bills and TV licences. The family home was one which was frequently being used by the family each time they returned to the UK when the father’s work leave permitted. The applicant himself would undertake work experience in the UK each time his school leave abroad would allow as his intention was always to live and study in the UK – this was his home.
The moment the applicant turned 18 and was able to independently live away from his family, he moved back home to the United Kingdom and completed his final year of college before moving onto university studies.
Application to the SFE
An application in the usual way was made to the SFE which was rejected on the basis that the applicant had not resided in the UK for three years prior to making the application.
The Appeal
Based on our client’s living arrangements both here and abroad, and with documents provided to us by the client, we were able to successfully demonstrate along with supporting case law, that the applicant was not only ordinarily resident in the UK at the relevant time but also that the client was settled and had ordinary residence in two countries at the same time.
Having considered all the facts, evidence, and case law, SFE accepted the applicant’s appeal on the basis that the applicant was ordinarily a resident in the UK three years prior to making the application at all relevant times despite not living in the UK during the first two years of the relevant period.
This recent successful appeal demonstrates that the SFE do take into consideration factors that would ordinarily reject an application and that the ‘general rule of thumb’ cannot be applied in each application as each application must be considered on its own individual merits.
If you have recently been rejected for student finance and are unsure of how to proceed or you would like to appeal the SFE’s decision, then do contact our specialist team at Summerfield Browne Solicitors.
Hina Thakrar has successfully settled a disrepair claim where repairs were over £10,000.
The Claimant was granted a secure tenancy by Hammersmith and Fulham Council around March 2020. Since December 2020, the property had suffered from the following disrepair:
A pre-action letter was sent to Hammersmith and Fulham Council on 21.03.24. Upon inspection of the property, it was clear that the property would be deemed as unfit for habitation, particularly due to the leaks and rodent infestation.
Initially, an offer of £7150 was made by the Council. However, we considered this offer to be unreasonable and were subsequently able to secure a settlement of £12,700, as well as an agreement to carry out all the remedial works.
Summerfield Browne Solicitors have successfully represented a building materials supply company in defending a summary judgement application to enforce a construction adjudication decision.
The jurisdiction of the construction adjudicator was originally challenged at the time of the adjudication on the grounds that the oral contract between the claimant and our client had been novated which extinguished the construction contract between the parties. The argument was that since there was no construction contract, the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to consider the referral. The adjudicator disagreed.
Clearly the fact that the jurisdiction of the adjudicator was challenged at the time of the adjudication assisted in defending the summary judgement application. Another significant factor in this success was that the original contract between the parties had been oral and therefore to ascertain its terms would require witness evidence which would require a full trial hearing and it was not for the summary judgement hearing to consider such detailed evidence.
Based on our case, the judge did consider that there was a real prospect of success for our client, which defeated the summary judgement application.
Solicitor Stacey Mills recently acted for an individual who was alarmed to discover that an interim injunction had been imposed against him, preventing him from contacting the Applicant by any means, or going within 100 metres of their residential or work addresses. The Application also suggested that the Applicant intended to sue our Client in relation to a claim for damages to compensate them in relation to an allegation of stalking and harassment.
Upon review of the evidence, it became apparent that the Applicant had failed to comply with their duty of full and frank disclosure in obtaining the injunction order, and they had also failed to comply with an undertaking.
Summerfield Browne assisted the Defendant in preparing for the return hearing. At the hearing, the interim injunction was discharged, the Applicant dropped her claim for compensation and the Court made no order as to costs.
Tessa Rhodes has recently acted for a cosmetic dentistry company in relation to county court proceedings issued against them claiming clinical negligence. The company had been joined into the proceedings at a late stage and had not been served with the proceedings in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules which had resulted in a county court judgement being registered against them.
On further investigation it was clear that the dentist involved was not an employee of the company and had no connection to them whatsoever other than using a similar trading name.
An application to set aside judgement was made to the court on their behalf which resulted in the judgement being set aside, the proceedings against them discontinued and payment of their costs.
A long running case involving a creditor’s claim against a liquidator was successfully resolved in the High Court last month bringing an end to a dispute that had been ongoing for more than a year and a half. The case was complex and involved a director who had liquidated a company and disposed of company assets.
With the help of Tom Lathom the creditor successfully removed the liquidator and appointed their own as well as securing an order for costs.
A long running case involving a creditor’s claim against a liquidator was successfully resolved in the High Court last month bringing an end to a dispute that had been ongoing for more than a year and a half. The case was complex and involved a director who had liquidated a company and disposed of company assets.
With the help of Tom Lathom the creditor successfully removed the liquidator and appointed their own as well as securing an order for costs.
There have been two recent notable cases where our Senior Solicitor, Tom Lathom, has achieved excellent results for his clients. The first case involved a boundary dispute. Tom specialises in property litigation and met with the clients face-to-face at the Birmingham office. The clients had been made subject to a CCJ (a County Court Judgment) as they had failed to file a Defence. Tom’s clients had been representing themselves as litigants in person and had found the court process both stressful and daunting. When the clients initially met with Tom it appeared that all hope was lost and they had resigned themselves to losing the claim. After discussing their position and Tom advised the clients to make an application to set aside the County Court Judgment. Due to his extensive County Court experience Tom represented the clients in Court himself (avoiding the need to instruct a barrister).
The County Court Judgment was set aside and this means that Tom’s clients can defend the claim and have the opportunity to participate in alternative dispute resolution (i.e. attempt to settle “out of court”). The clients have been extremely impressed by Tom’s handling of their case and feel more confident in fighting their corner.
Tom specialises in property dispute litigation and the lawful recovery of property (commonly known as “eviction proceedings”). In a recent and notable case Tom was instructed in relation a landlord and tenant dispute where the tenants had stopped paying the rent. Tom was instructed on behalf of the landlord of a residential property in Northamptonshire. The tenant was refusing to vacate the Property and owed over £5,000.00 in rent arrears. Tom took the client’s instructions, prepared and served the Section 8 notice on the tenant and, when the tenant refused to move out of the property, issued possession proceedings. The case was listed in the Northampton County Court and Tom represented the landlord in court. The Judge Ordered possession and the landlord obtained a County Court Judgment against the tenant. Tom is now advising the landlord on enforcement options. By preparing the Court documents and representing the client in Court himself Tom’s approach is both personal and cost-effective. Since obtaining the Order for Possession (also known as a Possession Order) the tenant has moved out. The client was extremely happy with the result in Court and is even more happy to have their property back!
Christian Browne advised the owner of an accident repair business in relation to the sale of the business as a going concern. The consideration was well in excess of £1 million. Christian Browne said that “Summerfield Browne solicitors have a strong corporate team which can provide expert advice in relation to all aspect of a business sale including property, employment and general commercial law”. He also said that “the parties wanted to conclude the deal in a few weeks which, given the complexity of the transaction was certainly interesting, but we managed to get it over the line within the very short timescale, which pleased our client”.
Christian Browne of Summerfield Browne Solicitors acted for the sellers of shares in a SME tooling company to a French buyer. Christian Browne commented that “this transaction was technically quite complex and involved quite a lot of legal and commercial due diligence, and also negotiation of extensive warranties and tax covenants. However the deal ran relatively smoothly and completed on the projected completion date which made the clients very happy indeed. We also managed to protect our clients’ interests with limited ongoing liabilities which was fantastic”.
Our Tessa Rhodes has been instructed to act for three individuals and is investigating whether they have a claim for damages against a Property Investment Company. The company in question advertised a development in America for properties that had been fully renovated and were ready for the rental market. They guaranteed a rental return and agreed to purchase the property back at market rate after 5 years. It appears that the properties in question are in fact derelict and uninhabitable and a market appraisal gives a valuation of ¼ of what was paid for them.
We are advising our clients on whether they have grounds to bring a claim for damages based on misrepresentation and are also making enquiries into the Directors of the company as they are not only involved in the Property Investment Company but are also involved in the Management Company who look after the development.
We have recently been successful in bringing a claim for breach of contract on behalf of a Recruitment Company. The person in question had been provided with employment on an interim basis. He had agreed to enter into a contract with our client which specifically stated that once his employment had ended, he was not to accept any offer of employment with the same company for an 18 month period without advising our client which would give them the right to claim commissions. Needless to say, the person concerned ended his employment earlier than was originally planned and then immediately accepted a position with the company on a full time basis and did not notify our client. He was therefore in breach of contract.
After submitting a Letter of Claim, the parties were able to negotiate a settlement without the need for a court action to be commenced.
Tom Lathom recently represented Claimants in a claim involving injunctive proceedings that had been issued in the Northampton County Court in 2017. The case involved a boundary dispute where neighbours had interfered with a right of way by frequently parking cars on land. It was a hard-fought case involving a long running dispute where neighbourly relations had broken down a long time ago. Tom’s clients were extremely happy with how the case was handled and appreciated Tom’s professionalism and creative approach to the proceedings.
If you have reached the end of your tether with your neighbours due to a boundary dispute, parking or trespass issues please do get in touch. We have a team of solicitors that can assist in relation to neighbour disputes.
We were recently instructed by a client who had been representing herself as a litigant in person against a company. The case involved comments that our client had posted on the Facebook social media platform. Our client had received a defective product and had received extremely poor customer service and had shared her views of the company on Facebook. The company in question had read the comments on Facebook and had written to our client threatening her with court proceedings. Our client believed that she was entitled to write what she wanted on Facebook as long as it was the truth. Our client was adamant that all the comments that had been written were true.
A claim was issued against our client in defamation and we raised several defences on behalf of our client. The case was listed as a small claim and proceeded to smalls claims mediation which is a free service that is offered by the courts to assist the parties in settlement negotiations. It is a useful service that is conducted over the telephone and, if successful, can avoid the need for a court hearing. It is often much cheaper to use the small claims mediation service (SCMS) than going to court.
After around 30 minutes on the telephone to the mediator we managed to settle the claim for just 5% of the claim value!
Our client was over the moon with the result and managed to avoid months of stress and uncertainty in going to court not to mention saving legal costs.
How we can help you
If you have posted comments online regarding the goods and services that you have received from a company and they have threatened you with defamation court proceedings and you need advice on what to do next please do get in touch.
Summerfield Browne Solicitors advised a client regarding a Business Rates Dispute with RVA Surveyors. The matter was to be heard on the fast track and as such had cost implications for both parties. However our Laura Everson advised on and resolved the Business Rate Litigation to the great satisfaction and happiness of our client.
In a recent case Tom Lathom obtained a possession order in 14 days on behalf of his client (the landlord of a property in Northamptonshire). The tenant owed over £5,000.00 and Tom obtained a county court judgment (or CCJ) for the rent arrears. The client was happy with the outcome in the knowledge that once the 14 days expired eviction proceedings could be commenced. Tom assisted the client with issuing the claim, writing the relevant witness statements and conducted his own advocacy at the hearing. By representing his clients in court Tom can often save his clients from paying expensive barristers’ costs.
Summerfield Browne acted on behalf of a packaging company issuing a claim for £12,000.00 in relation to a breach of contract, for the return of a deposit over disputed software works to a Client’s website. Summerfield Browne were able to fully investigate, negotiate and settle the claim outside of Court proceedings for over 60% of the original claimed amount due to our expertise in commercial litigation and breach of contract claims. We instructed Jennifer Brenton from 33 Bedford Row chambers to prepare particulars of claim on this matter.
Christian Browne advised a Chinese Biotechnology Company in relation to whether CE mark certification was required in connection with the importation of biotech products into the EC. Chris Browne said that “Summerfield Browne has strong regulatory experience and expertise in many diverse fields, which was of significant benefit in advising on CE certification”. He stated that “we also have significant biotech capability and advise a broad range of biotech clients on a wide range of matters including intellectual property matters and also collaborations and partnering arrangements”.
