Welcome to Advantage Litigation
Information contained in this website is for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal or professional advice. Use of the website indicates compliance with these terms. Advantage Litigation accept no responsibility for any loss or harm arising from acts or omissions made in reliance on the contents of this site. We do not accept liability for losses arising from reliance on sites to which this site links, or sites which link to this site. Such links are provided for information purposes only and the content of external sites is not endorsed by Advantage Litigation.
Information provided in the blog/latest news section of the site is provided for information purposes only. Unless specifically stated, inclusion in our news section does not imply affiliation between Advantage Litigation and the companies, individuals or bodies mentioned.
The content of this site including the logo and layout are copyright of Advantage Litigation. None of the content herein may be used for commercial explotation.
Advantage Litigation reserve the right to change the content of the site without notice.
Latest News
-
Private Healthcare Firm in £320m NHS Contract Dispute
In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More
-
Post Office liable for High Court legal costs
A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More
-
Judge criticised for ‘bullying’ Litigant in Person
London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More
