In recent news two multi-millionaire neighbours are in dispute over a 12 inch strip of land between their respective properties.
The properties are separated by a passageway. Party A carried out extensive renovation works including excavating their basement under the passage way right up to Party B’s flank wall. Party B is seeking an injunction to compel Party A to move the outer wall of his property away from their property by 12 inches and to partially fill in the basement claiming that they own part of the passageway. Party A denies any encroachment and insists that the passageway forms part of the property’s title. This is not an unheard of scenario and one which many people are involved in on a daily basis throughout the country. Resolving these kinds of disputes can not only be costly and time consuming but often also lead to further animosity and resentment between neighbours.
A boundary dispute occurs when two people both believe they have rights over a piece of land. One person erects a fence, plants a hedge, builds a structure or paves their driveway over the land that the other thought to have owned and inevitably a dispute arises.
While it is not always possible best practice is to firstly identify where your boundary is before the works start. This can be done by gathering as much information as possible about not only your property but neighbouring properties as well. Title deeds, photographs, Ordnance Survey Maps and declarations from previous owners can all assist in determining the boundary of the land. Regrettably this information is often vague and can be inconsistent so the best way to deal with the situation is to try to agree the boundary with your neighbour and resolve the matter amicably.
If an agreement cannot be reached you may need to consider involving surveyors and/or solicitors.
Seeking the advice of a surveyor who specialises in boundaries and boundary disputes may help to resolve matters quickly especially if the report provided by the surveyor is accepted by your neighbour. If an agreement cannot be reached, involving the court to determine the boundary may be the only remaining option.
Boundary disputes can be complex and we always suggest getting some legal advice if a dispute is inevitable it may also import to consider whether any works carried out by your neighbour fall within the ambit of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and what steps need to be taken in this regards. MW also have specialist solicitors who have extensive experience dealing with Construction disputes.
Boundary disputes often entail disproportionate time and expense being spent by parties and their advisers, arguing about a small piece of land. Disputes take place in close quarters and the stress and personal tone of them can mean that the most reasonable of people can become embroiled in hostile exchanges and lose a sense of perspective over what is at stake.
At MW, our Civil & Commercial Litigation Department has specialist property dispute solicitors who can assist with the most complex of disputes, including:
Our expert Solicitors are waiting to take your call and assist you in getting the best result, as quickly as possible. Call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback at your convenience.
MW was instructed to act for Ms Walker who approached Meta Panchamia in our Commercial Dispute Resolution Department for advice on an action commenced against her by Prestige Finance Ltd (PF).
PF has advanced an unregulated loan to our client in April 2005 (the then £25,000 regulated threshold) despite our client having asked for a loan for £18,000. The loan was to pay off some debts but when she signed this agreement she did not know she would actually end up in more debt. The loan was for £27,050 with costs and interest at 14.5% per annum (when the Bank of England base rate was 4.75%) over 240 months, provided she did not default in which case there were penalty payments. Her claim was that she was misled into signing the agreement.
Our client in fact, wanted the loan to be for a short term and wanted to be able to repay it when she could afford to do so. The terms were never properly explained, the broker involved persuaded our client to take a larger loan and required her to secure it against her property for which she had no legal advice.
The major issue was the interest was extortionate at 14.5% with penalties if she missed a payment. When she approached us she had paid just over £48,000. She had put in her own defence and needed proper guidance on some complex areas of finance law.
It appeared to us that our client had a strong arguable case. An amended defence was filed asking for the agreement to be re-written given the unfairness. Our client had also been subjected to a breach of data protection and a counterclaim was added. The finance company had sent her personal data to a third party notwithstanding the fact that they had also lost her file.
Despite efforts to try and settle the matter the case was heard in Brentford County Court and a reserved judgment was handed down on 16 October 2019 when Judge Nisa decided that the agreement should be re-written. The interest rate was reduced to 5.5% and that meant our client is to be repaid £1,856 back along with £500 in damages for the data protection breach and costs. The possession application was lifted and the charge will be removed.
The client was of course very pleased as this matter has caused her sleepless nights. She is finally able to get on with her life without the constant pressure of a loan company demanding repayment of an unreasonable sum.
It is unfortunate that some finance companies can convince vulnerable consumers into signing loan agreements where the terms dictate that the amount due to the loan company, will never be paid off until after their lifetime. Here we were able to assist the client which resulted in a very successful outcome.
At MW Solicitors, Our Mission is "to make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those who may have fallen into financial difficulties through no fault of their own.
If you need help or would like to talk to one of our Commercial Dispute Litigators to discuss your issues, call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback at your convenience.
Inheritance was once something that only the upper classes or large land owners; often farm owning families, would fight over. You will regularly find this depicted in a period drama or even an episode of Midsummer Murders, often with disastrous consequences. However, in today’s society even the most modest estates are at risk of a family dispute.
With an aged population, adult child siblings often fall out over who should care for their elderly parent or, more importantly, who should have access to their finances. Society, and especially the younger generation, seems to think that there is “a right to inherit”. Gone are the days when the elderly are encouraged to spend their hard earned cash on their retirement enjoying themselves. Some will be encouraged to release equity in order to assist their children get on the property ladder in advance of any inheritance.
Increased property prices mean that it is harder for the younger generations to be able to afford to buy properties and the only way they are going to be able to afford a property is from a gift of monies or inheritance.
We are also the credit generation – buy now pay later; so inheritance can be a way of clearing debts.
Property prices, especially in the South East, have rocketed and some families living in London have elderly relatives sitting on properties worth in excess of £1million. The value of property becomes something worth fighting over.
Most people own their homes. Even if you are a council tenant you can apply to buy your home at a discounted rate if you qualify under the Schemes run by the respective Local Authorities. Properties acquired in locations such as Islington, Tooting and Camberwell that were once council homes some forty/fifty years ago, and were purchased by Council tenants at hugely discounted prices, are now something worth fighting over.
The increase in second families creates a “them and us” distinction, often acrimonious, where so much mistrust is generated and there is usually some worry about future inheritance or trust placed in a surviving spouse to do the right thing by both families. This is difficult if the surviving spouse is exposed to pressure from their children to disinherit their partner’s children, notwithstanding their feelings. They are often caught up in grief and the loss of their partner and become over reliant on other family members. There is often a mistaken belief by couples that their mirror wills will bind them/their partners to the terms after the first death, and despite many solicitors explaining this, it is a regular trait that is people trust their partners (regardless of the advice given) to honour their agreed testamentary wishes and do the right thing; but this often ends badly and results in complicated expensive litigation.
Some may say that we have become more self aware, focusing more on looking after number one instead of putting others first.
This, together with the vulnerability of our elderly population where standards and morals that they were once taught and still believe in, is just a distant memory of those which exists in society today.
At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone". We understand that taking the next step to obtain legal advice on inheritance disputes can be worrying for our clients so we have made the process as simple and trouble-free as possible.
We offer an entirely FREE CASE REVIEW where we will discuss your specific circumstances with you and advise on your options going forward including the various ways in which your case could be funded, such as No Win No Fee Agreement.
A curious tale of adverse possession hit the headlines recently. Twenty years ago an Australian property developer, Bill Gertos, came across an empty house in Sydney. He changed the locks on it, carried out some repairs and began renting it out to tenants.
At the end of 2018 Mr Gertos won a landmark legal battle against relatives of the property’s previous owner and was granted ownership under a law that recognises squatters’ rights. The house has been estimated to be worth a little under £1m.
Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows a person to claim a right to land that is owned by someone else. For example, this could be through continuous use of a private road or cultivation of a unused piece of land. In Mr Gertos’ case it was an uninhabitable and unoccupied residence.
Adverse possession rewards the productive use of land and punishes landowners who "sleep on their rights." Mr Gertos spent nearly 150,000 Australian dollars on repairing and renovating the property before he let it out and continued to look after it for twenty years.
The family argued that Mr Gertos had not acted openly, meaning he should not be able to claim ownership through squatting laws.
However, the court ruled that he had “succeeded in taking and maintaining physical custody of the land, to the exclusion of all others.” The family are planning to appeal the decision.
In order to assess whether your property is at risk it’s important to understand the law around adverse possession, your rights and those of others.
In England, it is possible to claim adverse possession if;
There are a number of elements within these requirements that also need to be met;
Adverse possession of the title to government-owned land may not be obtained.
If your property is registered with the Land Registry then they will inform you if anyone makes an application for possession. It’s important you act quickly if you want to keep the title registered to you.
As the owner of a registered property you get 65 days to object to an application for possession.
If you are successful in your objection and there are squatters in your property you may need to take further action to remove them and fully reclaim your property.
You can remove squatters using an interim possession order, or by making a full claim for possession.
It is best to get legal advice from a solicitor if you need any help making a claim for possession.
Depending on your personal circumstances it may not be possible for you to keep a frequent, close eye on the property or land that you own.
By its very nature, vacant property is most vulnerable to unwanted intrusion and there are a number of steps you can take to protect it while it remains unoccupied. Security systems, such as alarms and CCTV monitoring can act as both a deterrent and provide vital evidence should you need to present this during legal proceedings.
You may also want to consider bolstering windows and doors with timber or steel hoardings, and securing outbuildings and garden gates with a robust locking system and heavy duty bolts.
At MW Solicitors, our mission is “to make quality legal services accessible to everyone” including those who find themselves in the victims of adverse possession.
Our specialist Property Dispute Solicitors are here to offer a helping hand and to guide you though the process of defending or making a claim of adverse possession. Don't delay talk to our experts today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.
This is a guest blog from SafeSite Security Solutions who provide professional vacant property security products and services, for your peace of mind. Safe Site Security Solutions can also handle all types of property clearance and waste removal, carried out in a responsible and ethical manner.
Disputes often arise over the ownership of an area of land. If you own land that someone else is using without your permission, you might be at risk of losing it altogether.
Someone who does not own land can obtain it by adverse possession. This is sometimes referred to as ‘squatters rights’.
Adverse possession is where a person can become the legal owner of land if they have possessed that land for a specified period of time, without permission from the legal owner.
There are two ways in which a squatter could obtain land by adverse possession. Once adverse possession is established the legal owner may not be able to oppose it. This would allow the squatter to legally register the land in his/her own name.
The old rules are in common law and they are based on the Limitation Act 1980. The old rules allow a squatter to obtain land by adverse possession after they have possessed it for 12 years or more. The period should end by 13th October 2003.
The test was set out in Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452. This case tells us that the squatter needs to prove the following to claim title by adverse possession:
Time begins to run when the legal owner of the land is not in factual possession of it and the squatter has possessed the land.
It is important to note that once the necessary 12 year period has been established, the owner of the land will not be able to claim it back.
If the squatter has not been in possession of the land for 12 years by 13th October 2003, then he/she could apply to be registered as the legal owner of the land after 10 years of adverse possession. However, under these new rules, the owner can oppose the application. If the owner objects to the application, it will be rejected unless the squatter satisfies specific conditions.
Whether you are the land owner or you believe that you may have acquired land by adverse possession, it is important that you consider when possession started and the specific period of time the land has been used for.
The timing and period of possession will determine whether your dispute falls under the old rules or the new rules (under the Land Registration Act 2002) which may have a significant impact on the situation.
At MW, our mission is "to make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including landowners who are in dispute over ownership of land.
Our specialist Property Disputes Lawyers have the experience and knowledge to help you to resolve your issues in an efficient and timely way.
Getting the keys to your dream home should be the start of a joyous period in your life, but for a young couple who recently asked for our help it was the start of a 12 month nightmare which saw them unlawfully evicted, forced to move back in with their parents and left with no choice but to go to court to regain access to their home.
Geoff Stagg, a Partner in the property disputes section of the Civil & Commercial Litigation Department, handled the case and as he explains, what happened to the clients was quite extraordinary, as was the eventual outcome.
The facts of this case were unusual because unlike typical unlawful eviction cases, which involve landlords evicting tenants with a short-term lease, what you had here was the freehold owner of a building that had been divided into flats unlawfully evicting a couple who had bought one of those flats.
The circumstances leading up to the eviction were complicated, but in essence the building owner alleged that the previous owners of our client’s property had failed to pay him thousands of pounds in outstanding service charges for repairs and maintenance. He insisted that our clients were responsible for settling these and when they queried this, and subsequently refused to pay, he responded by changing the locks to their property while they were out without a court order and refused to let them back in.
When the clients came to see us they were understandably distressed. They had paid nearly £200,000 for their first home in which to raise a family and were now faced with being unable to live there.
We explained to the building owner that he had no right to lock our clients out and demanded that he immediately provide them with a new set of keys so they could regain access. He refused, which left us with no option but to start court proceedings for what was clearly an unlawful eviction.
Incensed by this, the building owner did all he could to make dealing with the proceedings as difficult as possible. He acted without using solicitors and even made veiled death threats to myself and my colleague Louise as a result our involvement in the matter.
In spite of this we pushed on and after a 12 month battle we were successful in securing an order from the court confirming our clients’ right to be let back into their home. Initially the building owner still refused to comply with this but eventually had no choice but to cave in after we issued further contempt proceedings which could have resulted in him being imprisoned if he continued to ignore the order that had been made.
In recognition of the distress, inconvenience and financial losses our clients had incurred, we were also successful in obtaining an order from the court compelling the building owner to pay our clients over £66,000 in compensation, which is possibly the highest ever award made in an unlawful eviction case of this type in England and Wales.
Needless to say the clients were delighted with the outcome, although understandably they have since decided to sell the property so they can start a new chapter in their life somewhere else untainted by the horror of what they have had to endure.
You will not be charged for your initial call and the cost of any services we provide will be agreed with you in advance and may be capable of being funded under a Conditional Fee Agreement.
A Pre-Action letter, also known as a ‘letter before action’, provide an opportunity for people and companies in dispute to correspond before resorting to court action and potentially avoid costly litigation.
The exact Pre-Action Protocol used depends upon the type of claim, each type of claim is subject to a different Pre-Action protocol.
Creditors are to be afforded greater protection when the new Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for debt claims is.
Under the new protocol, which comes into force on 1st October 2017:
The new PAP will not apply to business-to-business debts unless the business is a sole trader. Sole traders are to be treated as individuals meaning that they will also enjoy the generous provisions included in the new protocol.
The result is now it will be more important than ever for a business to know the legal status of the entity they are dealing with to ensure their credit terms are not open to abuse.
At MW Solicitors, our mission is "To Make Quality Legal Services Accessible To Everyone" including individuals and businesses trying to recover debts. Our team of specialist Debt Recovery and Insolvency Lawyers are experts in using the Pre-Action Letter Protocols to avoid expensive and unnecessary court actions.
We can assist you with reviewing your credit terms so they are fit for purpose and pursuing debtors for you in line with the new protocol, writing the necessary Pre-Action letter on your behalf. In the event the debt is not settled we can also apply to the court for enforcement of any debts owed to you or your business. If you are a creditor pursuing a debtor talk to our team today, call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.
After the recent revelation that CPS prosecutors in England and Wales are being urged to take a more risk-averse approach to rape charge decision-making, the latest figures reported in The Guardian confirm that only a little over 1/3 of the rape cases referred to the CPS between April and September 2018 (2,310 referred) resulted in the suspect being charged. This is a significant decrease from the equivalent rate for 2013 – 2014 of 62%.
The team of specialist civil liberties lawyers at MW who work closely with the Centre for Women’s Justice on cases involving failings in the investigation and prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault, on the part of the police and CPS, are seeing a rise in the number of rape victims coming forward to challenge CPS and police decisions which let rape suspects avoid the judicial process.
The gatekeepers of the justice system – the police and CPS - are arbitrarily taking matters into their own hands leading to rape suspects remaining at large without even having to account for their actions in the courtroom. The message this sends is that rapists can get away with it.
The legal test applied by prosecutors in deciding whether to charge/prosecute rape suspects, is of course much lower than the criminal test. Even in cases where we are seeing strong evidence in support of a rape having taken place, the authorities are refusing to prosecute and giving unsatisfactory reasons for their decisions. This causes our clients, the victims, the utmost distress on top of the emotional turmoil they have already and will continue to suffer.
MW have a team of dedicated lawyers who work with rape and serious sexual assault victims seeking to overturn or otherwise challenge these decisions. This can include claiming for compensation following such fundamental human rights breaches and the psychiatric injuries these failings can cause.
One of the major problems in this context is that there are a number of ‘myths’ as to what does and, more concerningly, does not, constitute rape (e.g. ‘she was asking for it’ based on what she was wearing/how she was behaving, and so on). The effect of such myths is exacerbated where the police and CPS themselves seem to be attempting to predict what a jury might think, inevitably based on their own prejudices. The judicial system is set up – with jurors hearing these cases from all walks of society – to avoid just such abuses of power.
There is a clear and established public interest in prosecuting rape and serious sexual assault, an offence which engages the victims’ fundamental human rights. It is well known that such cases are often ‘one’s word against another’ since they often occur behind closed doors. But the crime is heinous and the second in seriousness only to murder. Yet so many cases are still resulting in shoddy investigations and poor-decision making, which itself results in rapists remaining free in society to commit the crime repeatedly. Overall, the impression of all of our clients who have fallen victim not just to rape or serious sexual assault, but to the system awaiting them afterwards, is that no one really cares.
Just such a flawed system is what led black cab rapist John Worboys to be able to repeatedly rape some 105 women (of the known reports), using similar methods, between 2002 and 2008, despite the matter being reported time and time again. Failings highlighted there included lack of training, failure to allocate adequate resources and failure to take the victims seriously.
At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those who are victims of serious sexual assault or rape. We offer initial telephone consultations with a solicitor, free of charge, and are able to represent clients seeking to complain, exercise their right under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and pursue civil claims and challenges by way of Judicial Review. We are able to offer legal aid if you are eligible, and no win no fee agreements.
If you have found yourself in this situation, and want to speak with a sensitive and experienced lawyer call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.
A man who was disinherited from his mother's Will is bringing a claim against solicitors who drafted an Estate Protection Trust in 2003 for his mother designed to ensure that he inherited her property, or the proceeds of sale, after she died. However, she entered into a civil partnership with a woman 37 years younger than her in 2007 and sold her property in 2008 without her son's knowledge. When she died in 2013, the majority of her estate passed to her civil partner.
The trustees in the Trust were the deceased, her son and her son's wife. It is not clear why or how the property was able to be sold without the trustees' knowledge, but it appears as though the trust was not necessarily directly attached to the property and there was no restriction on the title to prevent a sale. The son, through his solicitors, will undoubtedly have requested the solicitor’s files and these will be part of the evidence in the claim.
The solicitors say that they were not instructed to advise on the trust; neither were they acting in any capacity for the son and his wife. Generally speaking when drafting a trust of this sort, the solicitors acting would advise all parties to take independent legal advice on their position. I would also expect them to advise the client on the advantages and disadvantages; but again it is impossible to comment on this without the facts and we will not know the outcome unless or until the case is concluded and reported.
Trusts are difficult and complex and each party should seriously consider taking independent advice to be sure to minimise any risk to them in the future of the trust not doing what it was considered it would do initially.
Although the Civil Partner is not a party to this claim, it has been reported that she also inherited a significant amount from a previous partner; again a lady considerably older than her who sold her property and moved in with her, leaving her a substantial sum when she died. Although a claim was brought by the deceased's godson at that time it was settled out of court and the settlement terms are confidential.
Although, because the claim was settled on confidential terms, there is no actual suggestion or evidence that the partner has done anything wrong on either occasion, it is a fairly common theme that elderly and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of and coerced or influenced into disinheriting their family in favour of someone who comes along and takes care of them and puts themselves in a position of trust. Whilst is it fairly common and perfectly legal for someone to leave their estate to someone they love and trust and who has come along at a time in their life when they perhaps need someone to take care of them, there are undoubtedly people who see this as an opportunity to inherit from a vulnerable person and it is also understandable for a close family member to feel aggrieved if the estate they believe was intended for them has been stripped away from them.
There are various avenues which need to be explored if you feel that an elderly or vulnerable family member has been befriended by someone whose intentions are not what they are said to be.
As much as possible should be done while they are alive to ensue that they are not pressured into making a new Will and that no undue influence is used. However, it is often the case that these things do not come to light until after the death. At that stage, if there is any suspicion of coercion or undue influence, files from the Will writers can be requested and considered, together with any property transaction files, to establish what the deceased's intentions were when making decisions about their Will or their property in their lifetime.
Medical records are also often helpful in establishing whether the deceased had the necessary capacity and knowledge and approval to make a Will and/or deal with property transactions and also as to whether there were any concerns about undue influence.
At MW Solicitors, Our Mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including Trustees of Estates or those who are trying to resolve a Trust or an inheritance dispute in which coercion may have taken place.
Our dedicated and experienced Estate and Trust Dispute Solicitors will happily discuss your case on a no obligation basis. Please call us on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.
A promise was made. But is that enough?
For a proprietary estoppel claim, you must prove not only that promises were made, but that you, in reliance of these promises, acted to your detriment. The recent case of Gee v Gee and another  EWHC 1393 (Ch) explores these familiar principles of a proprietary estoppel claim, but also brings up some further interesting points to consider. As this case shows, this is a claim that you do not have to only bring upon death, as the son brought this claim during his father’s lifetime.
This case involved a son successfully bringing a claim against his father and brother, as he was not transferred the land and company (the farming business) that he expected from the years of promises made by his father. The father owned the farming business and land together with his wife (who owned a minority interest). The land was owned by the father, mother and company in the respective shares of 7/18ths, 7/18ths and 4/18ths. The company consisted of 24,000 shares, all of which were held by the father except for one share being held by the mother. The father therefore held the controlling interest in the business and the land.
The claimant (JM) helped his father with the farming business for over 30 years, unlike his other brother (Robert) who only started to contribute since 2012. JM did receive a wage throughout the years that he contributed to the farming business, at a rate that was “equivalent to the minimum wage for an agricultural worker set by the Agricultural Wages Board”.
JM and his father had a difficult relationship, but as the Judge pointed out in this case, this indicates further that JM’s time and efforts spent farming were in reliance that he would have a majority interest in the business, and land. In 2014, the father transferred his entire assets into the name of his other son Robert, as opposed to JM. In an attempt to restore some balance to the situation regarding the transfer to Robert, JM’s mother transferred her minority entitlement to JM.
JM began a claim under proprietary estoppel and was claiming for a greater entitlement to that which he received.
The Judge commented that some of the representations were made indirectly by JM’s father to JM and this meant that JM could not reasonably rely on it. However, he did find instances in where such assurances were seriously and directly made to JM. The Judge then decided that detriment and reliance had also been established as JM had been working for long periods of time “without adequate compensation” and that JM “gave up the chance to better himself and work elsewhere”. The Judge recognised the farming enterprise would not have been what it was today without JM’s input. The Judge decided that on the merits of this case, a claim of proprietary estoppel was made out.
Does the fact that the father wants to change his mind about where his assets go not matter at all? The answer is it will depend on the facts of the case. In this matter, the Judge found that for the father to retract from the representations he made, it would be “inequitable to do so”.
The Judge interestingly pointed out that even though JM had received gifts from his parents in the past, that these were “given to him as a result of his status as a family member, not as compensation for time and effort spent farming”. The Judge found that even though it is relevant that JM’s mother transferred her share to JM, it was not enough to make up for the promises made by JM’s father.
When considering what remedy would be right to award, the Judge confirmed he would base this on expectations held by JM. However, he took into consideration that JM was aware that his father was “changing his mind about how the farm was to devolve” and that Robert had also started to contribute towards the business, which called for a reduction in what was to be given to JM.
The Judge decided that JM should return what he was given by his mother, and he should receive “52% of the shares [in the business] and 46% of the land” instead. A successful result for the claimant; JM gained a controlling interest in the business, which was at the heart of the matter.
The Judge did note that his approach would leave the “company in the hands of multiple shareholders” which could case further “trouble for the future” but he felt that this was “unavoidable”. A clean break was not awarded because the value of the land could increase dramatically in the years to come.
Have you “positioned [your] life” around promises made to you? Have you relied on these assurances to your detriment? Or is somebody claiming that you have been making such promises to them?
At MW Solicitors, Our Mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" and we can provide a case review to examine the merits of your case. We can help progress a claim or defend against one depending on the evidence provided.