LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The High Court, presided over by Andrew Lenon KC, upheld HNW Lending Limited’s enforcement of a £1.52 million bridging loan against property developer Nicole Lawrence, dismissing her claims of duress and unauthorised agreement amendments.
Legally binding contracts in UK contract law can be made via WhatsApp, email, & text messages. The Jaevee Homes v Fincham High Court ruling confirms digital agreements require offer, acceptance, consideration, & intention (based on an objective test). Understand contract formation via electronic communication & risks of informal digital contracts in English law.
In Manolete Partners PLC v White, the Court of Appeal ruled that a pro bono costs order under Section 194 LSA 2007 for £85,000 payable to the Access to Justice Foundation (AJF) was unconditional and could not be set off against the pro bono party’s outstanding judgment debt, reinforcing the distinct legislative purposes of the provision.
HMRC’s use of Account Freezing Orders has risen 170% over the past 3 years. An AFO allows HMRC to quickly freeze funds in accounts suspected of criminal activity for up to two years. The number of AFOs, easily obtained by HMRC, has surged from 125 in 2022 to 341 in 2024, with the value of frozen assets rising massively. AFOs pose catastrophic risks for innocent businesses caught up in HMRC’s net.
An Account Freezing Order (AFO) is a UK court order that restricts access to funds in bank accounts suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Certain organisations such as the NCA, SFO or HMRC must show reasonable suspicion that the money is linked to criminal activity. They can apply for an AFO at a Magistrates’ Court. These orders, lasting up to two years, freeze the account, preventing any transactions without court approval. To protect their legal rights and assets, businesses and individuals facing an AFO can challenge or seek variation through legal representation.
The ruling in Glaser KC & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) affects individuals who have instructed direct access barristers and had to pay fixed fees even if a trial did not go ahead. The judge’s verdict rendered this inherently unfair term effectively null and void with no quantum meruit fallback.